"Why was a plane able to fly over New York?"

[Emily]

Front page of Yahoo right now, followed by, "A tragic small plane crash
brings to light a surprising fact."

It's truly saddening that everyone seems to be resorting to
anti-GA-speak. Why would a plane NOT be able to fly over New York? Was
there a rule I wasn't aware of? Does New York have a way of traffic
reporting that doesn't involved aircraft? Do they not allow helicopters
into downtown hospitals? I have no problem with the media reporting the
facts, but this makes me angry.

[FLAV8R[_1_]]

It is a fact that the media has always distorted the facts to generate
revenue.
If it wasn't over-sensationalized no one would bother watching.
The company I work for had a plane crash many years ago in the Midwest
and the media took off and ran whatever they wanted to say with total
disregard
for the family members of some of the crash victims.
It was then that I lost total respect for the media and since then I have
never
intentionally sat down to watch the news.
Living in Florida for most of my life I found that they (media) are also
directly responsible
for most of the persons that choose not to leave the area when a hurricane
is approaching,
due in part to the "cry wolf syndrome" created by them.

So enjoy your life and don't pay them too much attention.

David - KGYH




"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Front page of Yahoo right now, followed by, "A tragic small plane crash
> brings to light a surprising fact."
>
> It's truly saddening that everyone seems to be resorting to anti-GA-speak.
> Why would a plane NOT be able to fly over New York? Was there a rule I
> wasn't aware of? Does New York have a way of traffic reporting that
> doesn't involved aircraft? Do they not allow helicopters into downtown
> hospitals? I have no problem with the media reporting the facts, but this
> makes me angry.

[Jay B]

FLAV8R wrote:
> It is a fact that the media has always distorted the facts to generate
> revenue.
> If it wasn't over-sensationalized no one would bother watching.
> The company I work for had a plane crash many years ago in the Midwest
> and the media took off and ran whatever they wanted to say with total
> disregard
> for the family members of some of the crash victims.
> It was then that I lost total respect for the media and since then I have
> never
> intentionally sat down to watch the news.
> Living in Florida for most of my life I found that they (media) are also
> directly responsible
> for most of the persons that choose not to leave the area when a hurricane
> is approaching,
> due in part to the "cry wolf syndrome" created by them.
>
> So enjoy your life and don't pay them too much attention.
>
> David - KGYH

But it's not just the media who are both ignorant and indignant at the
same time...

The bile that is being spewed by politicians is equally toxic but it
has the potential to do far more damage than what the press
prints/airs.

And so long as politicians pander for votes via the media, they are (in
most people's minds) indivisible.

By themselves, the press decrying GA will not bring forth an ADIZ over
NYC, but politicians decrying GA *By Way Of* the media could.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Mxsmanic]

Emily writes:

> Front page of Yahoo right now, followed by, "A tragic small plane crash
> brings to light a surprising fact."
>
> It's truly saddening that everyone seems to be resorting to
> anti-GA-speak. Why would a plane NOT be able to fly over New York? Was
> there a rule I wasn't aware of? Does New York have a way of traffic
> reporting that doesn't involved aircraft? Do they not allow helicopters
> into downtown hospitals? I have no problem with the media reporting the
> facts, but this makes me angry.

For most people, airplane + New York = terrorists. In fact, for most
people, airplane anywhere = danger. Although people are willing to
fly to travel to different places, they generally don't want aircraft
flying around their neighborhood. The usual NIMBY syndrome, plus a
general distrust of aviation.

Remember, pilots are a tiny minority of society. The rest of society
sees nothing positive about general aviation, and would just as soon
forbid it entirely.

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

[AJ]

Just to add to the fun, the New York Daily News (which used to be a
decent paper) has as its headline -- in big bold letters: "IT FELT LIKE
SEPT. 11TH." Please! I was in the Trade Center, lost many friends, and
was right across the street when the first tower started to collapse.
If I do go around crying "SEPTEMBER 11" every time something goes
wrong, I don't think these uptown wussies should, either.

AJ

[Greg Farris]

"Why was a plane able to fly over New York?"

The question is not ridiculous.
Many cities in the world do not allow GA flight anywhere near, and many do
not allow commercial overflight either (usually for noise abatement
considerations). To allow it, one would have to submit that the risk to
benefit ratio is favorable.

Admittedly, the risk is not great - even trivial compared with the risk of
other activities related to individual freedoms (like driving cars and
trucks, which claim victims daily in NYC). This is the first GA crash into
a NYC skyscraper I'm aware of (correct me if I'm mistaken) and only the
second accidental crash of any plane into a NYC skyscraper. So, what's the
benefit? For airliners it's pretty obvious, with LaGuardia where it is, and
for GA - er, um.....

Don't get me wrong, I believe the freedom of an individual to experience
flight over New York is an important benefit, and I certainly hope the
corridors remain open, but seen from a political point of view... Imagine
the fallout if a second accident of this type were to occur within the next
year or so. Unlikely, perhaps, but certainly not impossible. That;s the
risk that someone like Bloomberg faces today, should he come forth and
defend the existance of VFR privileges.

Americans believe strongly in personal freedoms - many places in the world
(like almost all of Europe) do not even wait for one such incident to
banish small planes from their cities' skies. Individual freedoms are
simply not held in high enough esteem to make the combined risk and
nuisance factor worth it, even if both are small. The persistance of VFR
privileges over NYC (and I believe it will persist) will be a strong
affirmation of the American belief in individual freedoms.

"Live free or die" - isn't it, Skylune?

GF

[RK Henry]

On 12 Oct 2006 21:14:15 -0700, "AJ" > wrote:

>Just to add to the fun, the New York Daily News (which used to be a
>decent paper) has as its headline -- in big bold letters: "IT FELT LIKE
>SEPT. 11TH." Please! I was in the Trade Center, lost many friends, and
>was right across the street when the first tower started to collapse.
>If I do go around crying "SEPTEMBER 11" every time something goes
>wrong, I don't think these uptown wussies should, either.

A new phrase to replace the old standard, "It was like a war zone!"

RK Henry

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Greg Farris" > wrote

> This is the first GA crash into
> a NYC skyscraper I'm aware of (correct me if I'm mistaken) and only the
> second accidental crash of any plane into a NYC skyscraper.

How about the crash of a B-25 into the Empire State building, in the 40's?
--
Jim in NC

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-10-13, Greg Farris > wrote:
> Americans believe strongly in personal freedoms - many places in the world
> (like almost all of Europe) do not even wait for one such incident to
> banish small planes from their cities' skies.

That's rather inaccurate. In most of Europe, the regulation for flying
over a city is the same as it is in the US: you must comply with the
regulations for the airspace you are in, you must be at an altitude at
which you won't cause a damage to people or property on the ground if
your engine quits, and you must be at a minimum altitude (which is being
made ICAO-compliant over Europe - i.e. the same minimum altitude rules
that exist in the US FARs with virtually the same wording).

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[John Theune]

Greg Farris wrote:
> "Why was a plane able to fly over New York?"
>
> The question is not ridiculous.
> Many cities in the world do not allow GA flight anywhere near, and many do
> not allow commercial overflight either (usually for noise abatement
> considerations). To allow it, one would have to submit that the risk to
> benefit ratio is favorable.
>
> Admittedly, the risk is not great - even trivial compared with the risk of
> other activities related to individual freedoms (like driving cars and
> trucks, which claim victims daily in NYC). This is the first GA crash into
> a NYC skyscraper I'm aware of (correct me if I'm mistaken) and only the
> second accidental crash of any plane into a NYC skyscraper. So, what's the
> benefit? For airliners it's pretty obvious, with LaGuardia where it is, and
> for GA - er, um.....
>
> Don't get me wrong, I believe the freedom of an individual to experience
> flight over New York is an important benefit, and I certainly hope the
> corridors remain open, but seen from a political point of view... Imagine
> the fallout if a second accident of this type were to occur within the next
> year or so. Unlikely, perhaps, but certainly not impossible. That;s the
> risk that someone like Bloomberg faces today, should he come forth and
> defend the existance of VFR privileges.
>
> Americans believe strongly in personal freedoms - many places in the world
> (like almost all of Europe) do not even wait for one such incident to
> banish small planes from their cities' skies. Individual freedoms are
> simply not held in high enough esteem to make the combined risk and
> nuisance factor worth it, even if both are small. The persistance of VFR
> privileges over NYC (and I believe it will persist) will be a strong
> affirmation of the American belief in individual freedoms.
>
> "Live free or die" - isn't it, Skylune?
>
> GF
>
What cities do not allow GA near/over them? I've not heard of any.
Also, it should be pointed out that the VFR corridors exist for ATC as
much as GA. They don't want to have to deal with VFR traffic transiting
the airspace anymore then the traffic wants to deal with them. That
being said I fly inside the Class B airspace on a regular basis,
transiting from south to outer Long Island. ATC is busy enough in that
area and does not want to have to talk to every plane in the air in a
100 mile circle. I will allow that perhaps the East River corridor is a
candidate for shutting down as it's not a transit flyway but rather for
site seeing.

[Sylvain]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> That's rather inaccurate. In most of Europe, the regulation for flying
> over a city is the same as it is in the US:

isn't the airspace above London class A all the way to the ground?

--Sylvain

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Greg Farris" > wrote
>> This is the first GA crash into a NYC skyscraper I'm aware of (correct me
>> if I'm mistaken) and only the second accidental crash of any plane into a
>> NYC skyscraper.
>
> How about the crash of a B-25 into the Empire State building, in the 40's?
>

That would be the first accidental crash of any plane into a NYC skyscraper.
The B-25 was a military aircraft, not GA.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> For most people, airplane + New York = terrorists.
>

And prohibiting flying over NY would stop terrorists exactly how? I can
just see it: Mohammad Atta calling Osama: "Hey boss, we have to call
the thing off, they've prohibited flying over NY!"

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Greg,

> many places in the world
> (like almost all of Europe)
>

Oh? I fly here. Just yesterday right over Hamburg, the second biggest
city in Germany, pop. 1.6 million. Where do you get your data???

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Emily]

John Theune wrote:
> Greg Farris wrote:
>> "Why was a plane able to fly over New York?"
>>
>> The question is not ridiculous.
>> Many cities in the world do not allow GA flight anywhere near, and
>> many do not allow commercial overflight either (usually for noise
>> abatement considerations). To allow it, one would have to submit that
>> the risk to benefit ratio is favorable.
>> Admittedly, the risk is not great - even trivial compared with the
>> risk of other activities related to individual freedoms (like driving
>> cars and trucks, which claim victims daily in NYC). This is the first
>> GA crash into a NYC skyscraper I'm aware of (correct me if I'm
>> mistaken) and only the second accidental crash of any plane into a NYC
>> skyscraper. So, what's the benefit? For airliners it's pretty obvious,
>> with LaGuardia where it is, and for GA - er, um.....
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, I believe the freedom of an individual to
>> experience flight over New York is an important benefit, and I
>> certainly hope the corridors remain open, but seen from a political
>> point of view... Imagine the fallout if a second accident of this type
>> were to occur within the next year or so. Unlikely, perhaps, but
>> certainly not impossible. That;s the risk that someone like Bloomberg
>> faces today, should he come forth and defend the existance of VFR
>> privileges.
>>
>> Americans believe strongly in personal freedoms - many places in the
>> world (like almost all of Europe) do not even wait for one such
>> incident to banish small planes from their cities' skies. Individual
>> freedoms are simply not held in high enough esteem to make the
>> combined risk and nuisance factor worth it, even if both are small.
>> The persistance of VFR privileges over NYC (and I believe it will
>> persist) will be a strong affirmation of the American belief in
>> individual freedoms.
>>
>> "Live free or die" - isn't it, Skylune?
>>
>> GF
>>
> What cities do not allow GA near/over them?

DC.

[Ron Natalie]

Emily wrote:

>> What cities do not allow GA near/over them?
>
> DC.

Untrue. GA is still permitted over DC. It's heavily
restricted (to the point where it's killed most GA
traffic) but it's possible.

[[email protected]]

Morgans wrote:
>
> How about the crash of a B-25 into the Empire State building, in the 40's?
> --


Well yes, that would be the first one I was referring to. This is the
only other one I know of.
But I may be wrong.

Greg

[[email protected]]

Dylan Smith wrote:
>
> That's rather inaccurate. In most of Europe, the regulation for flying
> over a city is the same as it is in the US: you must comply with the
> regulations for the airspace you are in,



Well yes - It's the same as the US in that you must obey the
regulations where you are!!
When it's Class A all the way to the ground, then you may not fly there
VFR at all, but according to your definition you could call this "the
same" because you "must obey the airspace rules.

GF

[[email protected]]

John Theune wrote:
> >
> What cities do not allow GA near/over them? I've not heard of any.

Paris for sure is Class A to the ground. Other cities in France have
rules according to their size, which typically make it "de facto"
impossible to fly over them. It is possible to fly over towns and
smaller cities in France.

I'm not sure about London - I go there often enough, and I've never
seen a small plane over the city - so I'm guessing it goes about the
same way there. Again you do see VFR traffic over smaller UK cities.

Switzerland, I believe, is very restrictive as well.

GF

[[email protected]]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Greg,
>
> > many places in the world
> > (like almost all of Europe)
> >
>
> Oh? I fly here. Just yesterday right over Hamburg, the second biggest
> city in Germany, pop. 1.6 million. Where do you get your data???
>

Well, for starters it's published, and publically available. Secondly,
I've flown a lot around Paris and France in general. I admit I haven't
flown in Germany, but I do go to Munich several time a year and the
skies over that city are hardly buzzing with light aircraft (like zero)
so perhaps it's more restrictive than you make it sound?

GF

[John Theune]

wrote:
> John Theune wrote:
>> What cities do not allow GA near/over them? I've not heard of any.
>
> Paris for sure is Class A to the ground. Other cities in France have
> rules according to their size, which typically make it "de facto"
> impossible to fly over them. It is possible to fly over towns and
> smaller cities in France.
>
> I'm not sure about London - I go there often enough, and I've never
> seen a small plane over the city - so I'm guessing it goes about the
> same way there. Again you do see VFR traffic over smaller UK cities.
>
> Switzerland, I believe, is very restrictive as well.
>
> GF
>
You are confusing GA with VFR traffic. While some of those cities MAY
have controlled airspace to the ground, they do not ban GA. Even if
they have controlled airspace to the ground it may not prohibit VFR
traffic. Yes Class A requires IFR but if it's Class B or below then you
just need permission to fly VFR in there.

[[email protected]]

John Theune wrote:
> >
> You are confusing GA with VFR traffic. While some of those cities MAY
> have controlled airspace to the ground, they do not ban GA. Even if
> they have controlled airspace to the ground it may not prohibit VFR
> traffic. Yes Class A requires IFR but if it's Class B or below then you
> just need permission to fly VFR in there.


You are correct to clarify.
I was referring to VFR, which I believe is the subject of this thread,
but I accept your correction. At this point there is no Class B in
France - and until recently no Class C either. Class A is defined the
same (no VFR) but applied differently than in the US. It is used to
keep VFR traffic far from Paris.

It is very likely that JAA rules will bring European airspace closer to
the structure familiar to US pilots, and there will be more Class B and
C airspace - however I believe it is just as likely that cities like
Lyon (class C) will refuse access to most or all VFR.

GF

[Guy Elden Jr]

The voice of reason! --

"However, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a recreational pilot with decades of
experience, said he believes the skies are safe under the current
rules.

"We have very few accidents for an awful lot of traffic," he said.
"Every time you have an automobile accident, you're not going to go and
close the streets or prohibit people from driving." "


Emily wrote:
> Front page of Yahoo right now, followed by, "A tragic small plane crash
> brings to light a surprising fact."
>
> It's truly saddening that everyone seems to be resorting to
> anti-GA-speak. Why would a plane NOT be able to fly over New York? Was
> there a rule I wasn't aware of? Does New York have a way of traffic
> reporting that doesn't involved aircraft? Do they not allow helicopters
> into downtown hospitals? I have no problem with the media reporting the
> facts, but this makes me angry.

[[email protected]]

I also wonder about Asia - perhaps someone here knows.
In my post, I was not referring only to Europe, which is possibly the
most liberal part of "the rest of the world". I have traveled a fair
amount to Asia for my work, and I have never seen GA aircraft over the
cities (and this time I do mean GA - not just VFR). In fact, in China
one doesn't see any aircraft at all above the cities. In Indonesia I've
seen some airline traffic, but no GA. In Japan I do not recall seeing
any smaller planes above the cities, nor in South Korea (haven't been
to the "other" Korea). Does anyone here know what the rules are in
these places?

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-10-13, > wrote:
> Well yes - It's the same as the US in that you must obey the
> regulations where you are!!
> When it's Class A all the way to the ground, then you may not fly there
> VFR at all, but according to your definition you could call this "the
> same" because you "must obey the airspace rules.

Since when did Class A become prohibited airspace? The original
assertion was that 'in Europe, light planes cannot fly over most large
cities', which is patently wrong. Manchester has a class D surface area.
Leeds has a class D surface area. Newcastle has a class D surface area.
So does Edinburgh and Glasgow. All major cities. So not only can you fly
a light plane over London (so long as you are IFR, and can meet the
minimum altitude rules which are the same as the US, and the rule that
also exists in the US about being able to make a forced landing without
endangering people on the ground) you can fly a light plane over all
other large cities in Britain VFR.

So the assertion that light planes cannot fly over most European cities
is incorrect.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-10-13, > wrote:
<snip>

You also have to remember, certainly in the US - many pilots simply
illegally fly over the cities (not being able to even remotely meet
14 CFR 91.119 (a)). It went on all the time in Houston. It's almost
impossible to use the I-10 corridor legally in any fixed wing plane much
bigger than a Cessna 150, and even then there were virtually no places
you could make a forced landing without causing undue hazard to people
or property on the ground.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Skylune[_2_]]

Greg Farris wrote:
> "Why was a plane able to fly over New York?"
>
> The question is not ridiculous.
> Many cities in the world do not allow GA flight anywhere near, and many do
> not allow commercial overflight either (usually for noise abatement
> considerations). To allow it, one would have to submit that the risk to
> benefit ratio is favorable.
>
> Admittedly, the risk is not great - even trivial compared with the risk of
> other activities related to individual freedoms (like driving cars and
> trucks, which claim victims daily in NYC). This is the first GA crash into
> a NYC skyscraper I'm aware of (correct me if I'm mistaken) and only the
> second accidental crash of any plane into a NYC skyscraper. So, what's the
> benefit? For airliners it's pretty obvious, with LaGuardia where it is, and
> for GA - er, um.....
>
> Don't get me wrong, I believe the freedom of an individual to experience
> flight over New York is an important benefit, and I certainly hope the
> corridors remain open, but seen from a political point of view... Imagine
> the fallout if a second accident of this type were to occur within the next
> year or so. Unlikely, perhaps, but certainly not impossible. That;s the
> risk that someone like Bloomberg faces today, should he come forth and
> defend the existance of VFR privileges.
>
> Americans believe strongly in personal freedoms - many places in the world
> (like almost all of Europe) do not even wait for one such incident to
> banish small planes from their cities' skies. Individual freedoms are
> simply not held in high enough esteem to make the combined risk and
> nuisance factor worth it, even if both are small. The persistance of VFR
> privileges over NYC (and I believe it will persist) will be a strong
> affirmation of the American belief in individual freedoms.
>
> "Live free or die" - isn't it, Skylune?
>
> GF

...

[Bob Gardner]

I learned today that New York mayor Bloomberg is a "recreational pilot." I
guess that's different from the "amateur pilot" that Corey Lidle was,
according to the talking heads.

Bob Gardner

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Front page of Yahoo right now, followed by, "A tragic small plane crash
> brings to light a surprising fact."
>
> It's truly saddening that everyone seems to be resorting to anti-GA-speak.
> Why would a plane NOT be able to fly over New York? Was there a rule I
> wasn't aware of? Does New York have a way of traffic reporting that
> doesn't involved aircraft? Do they not allow helicopters into downtown
> hospitals? I have no problem with the media reporting the facts, but this
> makes me angry.

[[email protected]]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> So the assertion that light planes cannot fly over most European cities
> is incorrect.
>

Indeed, I was referring to VFR, and became sloppy with terminology. A
clarification was proposed, which I accepted, and I do apologize for
any confusion caused. I felt, and still feel that VFR is the pertinent
issue in this thread, and in that respect the assertion that the
situation in Europe is comparable to that in the US is just as
incorrect. In fact, the only European cities that compare to New York
in size do not allow VFR operations.

GF

[Thomas Borchert]

> Paris for sure is Class A to the ground.
>

The IFR approach (for small airplanes) for Toussous-les-Nobles leads
right across the Eiffel tower and ends near Versailles...

The center of Berlin is a restricted area after an ultralight pilot
commited suicide with his plane on the lawn in front of what amounts to
the German version of the House of Congress. The f***ing self-centered
idiot...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

> Well, for starters it's published, and publically available. Secondly,
> I've flown a lot around Paris and France in general. I admit I haven't
> flown in Germany, but I do go to Munich several time a year and the
> skies over that city are hardly buzzing with light aircraft (like zero)
> so perhaps it's more restrictive than you make it sound?
>

Berlin has the only restricted area over a big city in Germany. It is
limited to the very center of the administration. So it is exactly as
non-restrictive as I make it sound.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matt Barrow]

"RK Henry" > wrote in message
...
> On 12 Oct 2006 21:14:15 -0700, "AJ" > wrote:
>
>>Just to add to the fun, the New York Daily News (which used to be a
>>decent paper) has as its headline -- in big bold letters: "IT FELT LIKE
>>SEPT. 11TH." Please! I was in the Trade Center, lost many friends, and
>>was right across the street when the first tower started to collapse.
>>If I do go around crying "SEPTEMBER 11" every time something goes
>>wrong, I don't think these uptown wussies should, either.
>
> A new phrase to replace the old standard, "It was like a war zone!"
>
It was sheer pandilerium!!

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Morgans > posted:

> "Greg Farris" > wrote
>
>> This is the first GA crash into
>> a NYC skyscraper I'm aware of (correct me if I'm mistaken) and only
>> the second accidental crash of any plane into a NYC skyscraper.
>
> How about the crash of a B-25 into the Empire State building, in the
> 40's?
>
I thought that *was* the second one Greg referred to. Is there a 3rd?

Neil

[[email protected]]

Morgans wrote:

> > This is the first GA crash into
> > a NYC skyscraper I'm aware of (correct me if I'm mistaken) and only the
> > second accidental crash of any plane into a NYC skyscraper.
>
> How about the crash of a B-25 into the Empire State building, in the 40's?

I'm fairly certain a B-25 isn't a GA craft.

RFM
http://www.cyclelicio.us/

[Jim Macklin]

The one that hit the Empire State Building was military, but
many B25 were sold and converted to executive travel
aircraft before the production of new factory cabin class
airplanes.


Look for a old movie with James Garner, CASH McCall.



> wrote in message
ups.com...
| Morgans wrote:
|
| > > This is the first GA crash into
| > > a NYC skyscraper I'm aware of (correct me if I'm
mistaken) and only the
| > > second accidental crash of any plane into a NYC
skyscraper.
| >
| > How about the crash of a B-25 into the Empire State
building, in the 40's?
|
| I'm fairly certain a B-25 isn't a GA craft.
|
| RFM
| http://www.cyclelicio.us/
|

[Ron Natalie]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Paris for sure is Class A to the ground.
>>
>
> The IFR approach (for small airplanes) for Toussous-les-Nobles leads
> right across the Eiffel tower and ends near Versailles...
>
> The center of Berlin is a restricted area after an ultralight pilot
> commited suicide with his plane on the lawn in front of what amounts to
> the German version of the House of Congress. The f***ing self-centered
> idiot...
>
There has always been a very small prohibited area in that just barely
encompasses the White House and the Capitol (our legislature) and the
area in between them (mostly the mall, museums, and memorials). This
is inside the surface area of the class B, which has an additional
"Flight Restricted Zone" around it plus the ADIZ.


We had a guy crash a 152 into the a tree on the White House lawn and
while it caused some amount of consternation, it didn't end up in any
rules changes. At the time this happened, the new Denver International
airport was way behind schedule on it's opening date, leading to the
joke:
"What's the difference between the White House and Denver
International?"

"Planes land at the White House."

[Stefano]

Emily wrote:

> Front page of Yahoo right now, followed by, "A tragic small plane crash
> brings to light a surprising fact."
>
> It's truly saddening that everyone seems to be resorting to
> anti-GA-speak. Why would a plane NOT be able to fly over New York? Was
> there a rule I wasn't aware of? Does New York have a way of traffic
> reporting that doesn't involved aircraft? Do they not allow helicopters
> into downtown hospitals? I have no problem with the media reporting the
> facts, but this makes me angry.
I live in Milano (Italy) slightly over 1 million population, where overfly
of city area is prohibited.
We have got only one building in the center worth to be called skyscraper.
Not long ago someone managed to punch a hole right in the middle of it with
a Rockwell Commander. Things like this can happen. But even if they do not
happen realize that people who don't fly airplanes usually just hate them.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> And prohibiting flying over NY would stop terrorists exactly how?

It wouldn't. But the people doing the prohibiting wouldn't know
that--or wouldn't care.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Greg Farris writes:

> Many cities in the world do not allow GA flight anywhere near, and many do
> not allow commercial overflight either (usually for noise abatement
> considerations). To allow it, one would have to submit that the risk to
> benefit ratio is favorable.

It used to be forbidden to overfly Paris. Ironically, not long after
9/11, the government authorized overflight, although it's still rare.

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

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Greg Farris writes:
>
>> Many cities in the world do not allow GA flight anywhere near, and many do
>> not allow commercial overflight either (usually for noise abatement
>> considerations). To allow it, one would have to submit that the risk to
>> benefit ratio is favorable.
>
>It used to be forbidden to overfly Paris. Ironically, not long after
>9/11, the government authorized overflight, although it's still rare.
>


Utter nonsense.
It's never been "forbidden" for IFR operations to overfly Paris.
It's "always" been forbidden for VFR operations to penetrate Paris' Class "A".
None of this changed after 9/11. The only thing that changed at that time was
that the only VFR corridor anywhere near Paris (over LeBourget Airport) was
closed - probably forever.

[Greg Farris]

In article om>,
says...

>..


A bit terse perhaps, but unusually eloquent and to the point for Skylune!

GF

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
..
>
>The center of Berlin is a restricted area after an ultralight pilot
>commited suicide with his plane on the lawn in front of what amounts to
>the German version of the House of Congress. The f***ing self-centered
>idiot...
>


I agree. That was my first (admittedly self-centered) thought when I
learned about 9/11 - before it was understood what was going on. I saw a
small internet headline saying "plane crashes into world trade center".
I thought "small plane" and I thought "******* is going to ruin it for all
of us..."

GF

[gatt]

"FLAV8R" > wrote in message
...

> It was then that I lost total respect for the media and since then I have
> never intentionally sat down to watch the news.

If you haven't watched the news then it's pretty curious how you know so
much about what and how they present their news. That's like me commenting
on how the New York Yankees play baseball when I haven't watched them play a
game in over a decade.

> Living in Florida for most of my life I found that they (media) are also
> directly responsible for most of the persons that choose not to leave the
> area >when a hurricane is approaching,

Actually, as an American of free will I like to believe that I am directly
responsible for my own actions. The people who are directly responsible
for choosing not to leave the area are the people who choose not to leave
the area.

-c

[Mxsmanic]

Greg Farris writes:

> Utter nonsense.
> It's never been "forbidden" for IFR operations to overfly Paris.
> It's "always" been forbidden for VFR operations to penetrate Paris' Class "A".
> None of this changed after 9/11. The only thing that changed at that time was
> that the only VFR corridor anywhere near Paris (over LeBourget Airport) was
> closed - probably forever.

I'm just going by what I read. I do see a lot more aircraft
overflying the city than in the past, when they were scarce.

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

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:57:13 -0500, Emily wrote:

> It's truly saddening that everyone seems to be resorting to anti-GA-speak.
> Why would a plane NOT be able to fly over New York?

I was surprised to learn of the exclusion zones too, once upon a time.
I'd always assumed that the entire area was tightly controlled (what I'd
think of, now that I'm a pilot, as class B) simply because of the
proximity and number major airports: TEB, EWR, and JFK. I think LGA gets
some use too, still.

But that's not the same thing as believing that a plane couldn't fly over
NY. I just thought that it would be under positive "control".

What irks me is that people so quickly decide that small and large
airplanes should be treated differently, to the disfavor of small
airplanes. Those cowards on the news claim shock that a small airplane
can fly overhead when those small airplanes had nothing to do with the
2001/09 attack.

Yet mention the idea that large aircraft should be kept 30 miles away, and
nobody seems to like that idea...despite that idea being consistent with
their claimed fears.

It's irrational.

Although I was on the Jersey side on 2001/09/11, I'd a lot of friends on
the wrong side that day. Quite a few passed through my office leaving
Manhattan for temporary space elsewhere. At least one of the firemen I
know was on the scene, and I'd be surprised if none of the others were.

None whine as much as the people I see on the news. Admittedly, there's
some sample bias. But I wonder if the newsies look to pick out the
cowards.

We know that the politicians stoop for craven vote.

> Does New York have a way of traffic reporting that
> doesn't involved aircraft?

There are quite a few traffic cameras at fixed mount points, in fact. But
helicopters are still used too.


[i]
> Do they not allow helicopters into downtown hospitals?

I know that at least one hospital on the east side of Manhattan has a pad
on the roof. I kept a close watch during a visit to Federal Court one day
recently, but nobody broke the boredom by appearing. There are also a few
commercial helipads at the periphery of Manhattan, whose helicopters make
the exclusion zone flying *far* more exciting {8^).

- Andrew

[.Blueskies.]

"Morgans" > wrote in message ...
:
: "Greg Farris" > wrote
:
: > This is the first GA crash into
: > a NYC skyscraper I'm aware of (correct me if I'm mistaken) and only the
: > second accidental crash of any plane into a NYC skyscraper.
:
: How about the crash of a B-25 into the Empire State building, in the 40's?
: --
: Jim in NC


Ban military aircraft from overflying any city!

[FLAV8R[_1_]]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "FLAV8R" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> It was then that I lost total respect for the media and since then I have
>> never intentionally sat down to watch the news.
>
> If you haven't watched the news then it's pretty curious how you know so
> much about what and how they present their news. That's like me
> commenting on how the New York Yankees play baseball when I haven't
> watched them play a game in over a decade.

How old are you? Does your daddy know that your playing with his computer?
If your looking to tear apart my qoute then use it correctly.
I said "I have never intentionally sat down to watch the news" that doesn't
mean
I don't get to watch it. At work they have monitors everywhere playing CNN
and
after hearing the same news for an entire 8 hour shift you come home knowing
more than you want to.
>
>> Living in Florida for most of my life I found that they (media) are also
>> directly responsible for most of the persons that choose not to leave
>> the area >when a hurricane is approaching,
>
> Actually, as an American of free will I like to believe that I am directly
> responsible for my own actions. The people who are directly responsible
> for choosing not to leave the area are the people who choose not to leave
> the area.
>
> -c

Again your showing your age.. It has nothing to do with free will.
Many people watch the news as a valid source of information, and in
the long run the person who has left the area 5 or 6 times based on the
over sensationalized reports of a massive hurricane approaching have
come to find that the reports are more for ratings than accuracy.

So when the next hurricane approaches you might not be so quick to
leave the comfort of your home and spend your day in highway gridlock
and overpriced hotels (due to price gouging) not to mention possibly
coming home to a house that has been looted.

I would think that you must have experienced that yourself living in
New York.

Now if I'm not mistaken your going to find some sort of idiotic response
to what I have just tried to educate you with.

David - KGYH

[Emily]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Emily wrote:
>
>>> What cities do not allow GA near/over them?
>>
>> DC.
>
> Untrue. GA is still permitted over DC. It's heavily
> restricted (to the point where it's killed most GA
> traffic) but it's possible.
>
I guess I haven't been paying much attention. When I stopped paying
attention, it wasn't allowed.

[Emily]

Guy Elden Jr wrote:
> The voice of reason! --
>
> "However, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a recreational pilot with decades of
> experience, said he believes the skies are safe under the current
> rules.
>
> "We have very few accidents for an awful lot of traffic," he said.
> "Every time you have an automobile accident, you're not going to go and
> close the streets or prohibit people from driving." "

Hope people listen to him.
But I also wish they wouldn't refer to him as a recreational pilot.

[Emily]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2006-10-13, > wrote:
> <snip>
>
> You also have to remember, certainly in the US - many pilots simply
> illegally fly over the cities (not being able to even remotely meet
> 14 CFR 91.119 (a)).

How does flying over a city violate that FAR?

[Jim Macklin]

A [the] minimum altitude must be high enough to allow you to
maneuver and land safely if the engine fails and never lower
than 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle/building within
2,000 feet laterally.

Helicopters [and Helio Couriers] can land in very small
areas, a faster airplane might need a big empty parking lot.


"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Dylan Smith wrote:
| > On 2006-10-13, >
wrote:
| > <snip>
| >
| > You also have to remember, certainly in the US - many
pilots simply
| > illegally fly over the cities (not being able to even
remotely meet
| > 14 CFR 91.119 (a)).
|
| How does flying over a city violate that FAR?

[Emily]

Stefano wrote:
<snip>
> We have got only one building in the center worth to be called skyscraper.
> Not long ago someone managed to punch a hole right in the middle of it with
> a Rockwell Commander.

Just curious, what was the cause?

[Emily]

Greg Farris wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
> .
>> The center of Berlin is a restricted area after an ultralight pilot
>> commited suicide with his plane on the lawn in front of what amounts to
>> the German version of the House of Congress. The f***ing self-centered
>> idiot...
>>
>
>
> I agree. That was my first (admittedly self-centered) thought when I
> learned about 9/11 - before it was understood what was going on.

Heh. That was my first though as well.

[Emily]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> A [the] minimum altitude must be high enough to allow you to
> maneuver and land safely if the engine fails and never lower
> than 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle/building within
> 2,000 feet laterally.

You're doing it again. I'm well aware of what the FAR states, I'm just
unclear as to how flying over a city violates it. I've routinely flown
over Chicago, never less than the required MSA and always with a landing
site in mind.

[Mxsmanic]

Andrew Gideon writes:

> What irks me is that people so quickly decide that small and large
> airplanes should be treated differently, to the disfavor of small
> airplanes.

That's because the average person's only interest in aviation is as
transportation, via commercial airline flights. Big airplanes are
needed for commercial airline flights; small airplanes are not.
Therefore most people are perfectly willing to outlaw small aircraft
entirely, because such a ban has no effect on them; whereas they make
an exception for large aircraft, because they need large aircraft for
their own occasional airline travel.

> Those cowards on the news claim shock that a small airplane
> can fly overhead when those small airplanes had nothing to do with the
> 2001/09 attack.
>
> Yet mention the idea that large aircraft should be kept 30 miles away, and
> nobody seems to like that idea...despite that idea being consistent with
> their claimed fears.
>
> It's irrational.

You don't need an aircraft to transport bombs or weapons, as Oklahoma
City proved, so all the fears are irrational.

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

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Stefano wrote:
><snip>
>> We have got only one building in the center worth to be called skyscraper.
>> Not long ago someone managed to punch a hole right in the middle of it with
>> a Rockwell Commander.
>
>Just curious, what was the cause?

IIRC the guy had just lost some sort of business deal with a Swiss Banker, and
was feeling a bit down - so he decided to make the world a worse place to live
in for all those left behind...

[Matt Barrow]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "FLAV8R" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> It was then that I lost total respect for the media and since then I have
>> never intentionally sat down to watch the news.
>
> If you haven't watched the news then it's pretty curious how you know so
> much about what and how they present their news.

Recall the word "intentionally". Define the word "experience".

Small wonder the MSM industry is heading down the crapper -- credibility
damn near ZILCH, comprehension is the same. Post-modernist twits, the only
thing the MSM has in its tally is _arrogance_.

[Matt Barrow]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>>
>>Stefano wrote:
>><snip>
>>> We have got only one building in the center worth to be called
>>> skyscraper.
>>> Not long ago someone managed to punch a hole right in the middle of it
>>> with
>>> a Rockwell Commander.
>>
>>Just curious, what was the cause?
>
> IIRC the guy had just lost some sort of business deal with a Swiss Banker,
> and
> was feeling a bit down - so he decided to make the world a worse place to
> live
> in for all those left behind...

Psychic, are we?

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-10-14, Emily > wrote:
> Dylan Smith wrote:
>> On 2006-10-13, > wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> You also have to remember, certainly in the US - many pilots simply
>> illegally fly over the cities (not being able to even remotely meet
>> 14 CFR 91.119 (a)).
>
> How does flying over a city violate that FAR?

Because, in a single engine aircraft, if the engine stopped a forced
landing could not be made without causing undue hazard to people or
property on the ground - just like the regulation says.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-10-14, Emily > wrote:
> You're doing it again. I'm well aware of what the FAR states, I'm just
> unclear as to how flying over a city violates it. I've routinely flown
> over Chicago, never less than the required MSA and always with a landing
> site in mind.

In many places, there are no forced landing sites which do not cause
undue hazard to people or property on the ground. I'm very familiar with
Houston (the last big city I lived in), and the I-10 corridor was a
popular VFR route across the city between the two class B surface areas
(which, during the day, if you weren't actually going to HOU or IAH, you
weren't going to get clearance to transit).

There are only a few places in that highly congested area which
constitute a place where you can land without causing undue hazard to
people or property - and then, generally only in an aircraft that can
land easily in a small amount of space. People flew it all the time in
hot singles which the only place they could realistically put down would
be I-10 itself - which certainly is causing undue hazards to those on
the ground. You could argue in that in something slow with a steep
approach path (say, a 150 or a 172 with barn door flaps) that you could
land in some of the patches of wasteland in the I-10 corridor without
causing an undue hazard.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Emily]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2006-10-14, Emily > wrote:
>> Dylan Smith wrote:
>>> On 2006-10-13, > wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> You also have to remember, certainly in the US - many pilots simply
>>> illegally fly over the cities (not being able to even remotely meet
>>> 14 CFR 91.119 (a)).
>> How does flying over a city violate that FAR?
>
> Because, in a single engine aircraft, if the engine stopped a forced
> landing could not be made without causing undue hazard to people or
> property on the ground - just like the regulation says.

Is that really true, though? I've never flown over New York, but I have
flown over other large cities, and it's definitely
possible to fly high enough to land if necessary without endangering anyone.

[Emily]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2006-10-14, Emily > wrote:
<snip>

>You could argue in that in something slow with a steep
> approach path (say, a 150 or a 172 with barn door flaps) that you could
> land in some of the patches of wasteland in the I-10 corridor without
> causing an undue hazard.

That's what I was thinking of. Maybe my definition of "low" is
different than anyone elses, but when I overfly Dallas, I see dozens of
places to land if necessary. But I'm also not into flying over anything
at 500 AGL.

[Stefano]

Greg Farris wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>>
>>
>>Stefano wrote:
>><snip>
>>> We have got only one building in the center worth to be called
>>> skyscraper. Not long ago someone managed to punch a hole right in the
>>> middle of it with a Rockwell Commander.
>>
>>Just curious, what was the cause?
>
> IIRC the guy had just lost some sort of business deal with a Swiss Banker,
> and was feeling a bit down - so he decided to make the world a worse place
> to live in for all those left behind...

http://www.corriere.it/av/galleria.html?pirellone&1

The inquiry reached the conclusion that suicide was not the probable cause,
though psychical conditions of the pilot could have played a role in the
incident. The flight was poorly planned from the beginning, NOTAMs were
ignored and even in radio communications the pilot showed mental confusion.
In the last part of the flight bound to linate city airport he reported
landing gear problems. While messing with the operating manual and circuit
breakers, flying facing the sun, he lost altitude and situation awareness,
crashing with the building. A witness reported he was trying to turn at
maximum power when collision happened. There were two other casualties on
ground and damage to the building was significant. People still believe it
was suicide beacause hitting the skyscraper by chance was deemed
impossible.

[Gary Drescher]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Is that really true, though? I've never flown over New York, but I have
> flown over other large cities, and it's definitely possible to fly high
> enough to land if necessary without endangering anyone.

Most large cities I'm familiar with have a river (or larger body of water)
that you can ditch into if there's nothing more suitable.

--Gary

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> It used to be forbidden to overfly Paris.
>

Bull. Provide the NOTAM.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:53:19 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Mxsmanic,
>
>> For most people, airplane + New York = terrorists.
>>
>
>And prohibiting flying over NY would stop terrorists exactly how? I can
>just see it: Mohammad Atta calling Osama: "Hey boss, we have to call
>the thing off, they've prohibited flying over NY!"

One network and I don't remember which, did quote the AOPA's statement
about a small car being capable of carrying much more of any weapon
(biological, explosive, or what ever) than a small plane.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 07:28:25 +0200, Greg Farris >
wrote:

>"Why was a plane able to fly over New York?"
>
>The question is not ridiculous.
>Many cities in the world do not allow GA flight anywhere near, and many do
>not allow commercial overflight either (usually for noise abatement
>considerations). To allow it, one would have to submit that the risk to
>benefit ratio is favorable.

And to most of us it is.

Here even with the corrupt politicians, biased news, and misguided
leadership we still live in the greatest country with the most
individual freedoms on the globe.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:40:25 -0500, Emily
> wrote:

>Ron Natalie wrote:
>> Emily wrote:
>>
>>>> What cities do not allow GA near/over them?
>>>
>>> DC.
>>
>> Untrue. GA is still permitted over DC. It's heavily
>> restricted (to the point where it's killed most GA
>> traffic) but it's possible.
>>
>I guess I haven't been paying much attention. When I stopped paying
>attention, it wasn't allowed.

That was only for about three months as I recall. You can now and
have been able to for some time, fly over most of DC VFR, but you are
in an ADIZ which means talking to ATC.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:04:47 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>On 2006-10-14, Emily > wrote:
>> You're doing it again. I'm well aware of what the FAR states, I'm just
>> unclear as to how flying over a city violates it. I've routinely flown
>> over Chicago, never less than the required MSA and always with a landing
>> site in mind.
>
>In many places, there are no forced landing sites which do not cause
>undue hazard to people or property on the ground. I'm very familiar with
>Houston (the last big city I lived in), and the I-10 corridor was a
>popular VFR route across the city between the two class B surface areas
>(which, during the day, if you weren't actually going to HOU or IAH, you
>weren't going to get clearance to transit).
>
>There are only a few places in that highly congested area which
>constitute a place where you can land without causing undue hazard to
>people or property - and then, generally only in an aircraft that can
>land easily in a small amount of space. People flew it all the time in
>hot singles which the only place they could realistically put down would
>be I-10 itself - which certainly is causing undue hazards to those on
>the ground. You could argue in that in something slow with a steep
>approach path (say, a 150 or a 172 with barn door flaps) that you could

Look up the landing figures for an older Bonanza and a 172.
Using the proper speeds the Bo can land as short or shorter than a
172.


>land in some of the patches of wasteland in the I-10 corridor without
>causing an undue hazard.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dana M. Hague]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:50:03 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>A [the] minimum altitude must be high enough to allow you to
>maneuver and land safely if the engine fails and never lower
>than 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle/building within
>2,000 feet laterally.

Of course, if you're in the NYC corridor, you're not over the city
itself but the river... I'd imagine that the people who planned the
corridor were considering the river itself "sparsely populated", so
you only need to be 500' *away* from people or structures on the
surface, not necessarily over.
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For every new foolproof invention there is a new and improved fool.

[Blanche Cohen]

Roger (K8RI) > wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 07:28:25 +0200, Greg Farris >
>
>>"Why was a plane able to fly over New York?"
>>
>>The question is not ridiculous.
>>Many cities in the world do not allow GA flight anywhere near, and many do
>>not allow commercial overflight either (usually for noise abatement
>>considerations). To allow it, one would have to submit that the risk to
>>benefit ratio is favorable.

Oddly enough, most commercial traffic from the west to LGA goes
DIRECTLY over Manhattan. Check out flightaware or passur and watch
the flight tracks.

[Mxsmanic]

Roger (K8RI) writes:

> Here even with the corrupt politicians, biased news, and misguided
> leadership we still live in the greatest country with the most
> individual freedoms on the globe.

That claim is beginning to sound a bit hollow. Just repeating it
won't make it so, especially if you are throwing away your freedoms
even as you chant about their sacredness.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Roger,

> we still live in the greatest country with the most
> individual freedoms on the globe.
>

The guys in Gitmo probably have a different view.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> > we still live in the greatest country with the most
> > individual freedoms on the globe.
>
> The guys in Gitmo probably have a different view.

The guys in Gitmo had that "different view" BEFORE they
got to Gitmo.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Bob,

> The guys in Gitmo had that "different view" BEFORE they
> got to Gitmo.
>

If only... You need to read up on that.

Just one example: They just released a guy from Germany after 4 years -
he had done nothing but hang out with the wrong people in Pakistan
(those that wanted to collect on the bounty offered by the US). No due
process, no chance. FOUR YEARS!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Roger,
>
> > we still live in the greatest country with the most
> > individual freedoms on the globe.
> >
>
> The guys in Gitmo probably have a different view.

That's their problem! If they hadn't illegally raised arms against us.
they wouldn't be there!

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-10-16, Roger (K8RI) > wrote:
> Look up the landing figures for an older Bonanza and a 172.
> Using the proper speeds the Bo can land as short or shorter than a
> 172.

Not over a 50 foot obstacle with *no* engine power. I've flown a
reasonable amount in the S-35 Bonanza (which I think is older, well,
it's older than me anyway!) - and with engine power that's true.
However, the Beech manual advises you to increase the approach speed by
something like 10 knots when landing without engine power so as to have
sufficient energy to flare at the bottom. A Cessna 172 you can come in
slowly with the prop windmilling, and still have enough energy to flare.
IIRC, for the S-35 at gross weight, without power the speed was on the
order of 80 knots indicated. In a Cessna 172, your final approach
without power at gross is 65 knots indicated.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-10-14, Emily > wrote:
> Dylan Smith wrote:
>> On 2006-10-14, Emily > wrote:
><snip>
>
>>You could argue in that in something slow with a steep
>> approach path (say, a 150 or a 172 with barn door flaps) that you could
>> land in some of the patches of wasteland in the I-10 corridor without
>> causing an undue hazard.
>
> That's what I was thinking of. Maybe my definition of "low" is
> different than anyone elses, but when I overfly Dallas, I see dozens of
> places to land if necessary. But I'm also not into flying over anything
> at 500 AGL.

I always flew the Houston corridor at 2000' (which is pretty much 2000'
AGL since the whole area is close to sea level). Much of it is very
densely populated - suburbs, interstates, skyscrapers and that sort of
thing.

There are dozens of places to land - but far fewer if qualified "without
causing undue hazard to persons or property on the ground". A football
field is not a place where you can land without causing undue hazard
unless you can be absolutely certain that it's not being used. Neither
are many city parks because there will be people there not expecting
a ton of metal to be bearing down on them at 65 knots. The only places
that really qualify are those pieces of wasteland, or perhaps empty
parking lots of closed down malls. I-10 certainly does not qualify.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Thomas Borchert]

Orval,

> If they hadn't illegally raised arms against us.
> they wouldn't be there!
>

You are wrong. That's not who is in Gitmo. Not by a long shot (pardon
the pun).

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matt Barrow]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:53:19 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> > wrote:
>
>>Mxsmanic,
>>
>>> For most people, airplane + New York = terrorists.
>>>
>>
>>And prohibiting flying over NY would stop terrorists exactly how? I can
>>just see it: Mohammad Atta calling Osama: "Hey boss, we have to call
>>the thing off, they've prohibited flying over NY!"
>
> One network and I don't remember which, did quote the AOPA's statement
> about a small car being capable of carrying much more of any weapon
> (biological, explosive, or what ever) than a small plane.
>
ABC...and they blew it

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2006/10/we-have-winner.html

We Have a Winner
Yesterday, I speculated about how long it would take the MSM to print or
broadcast a story about the potential terrorist threat from general aviation
aircraft--despite ample data suggesting that light aircraft pose little
danger as terrorist weapons.

Sure enough, ABC's Lisa Stark was one of the first out of the box. On
Wednesday's edition of "ABC World News," she filed the obligatory report on
the threat posed by terrorists stealing light aircraft and using them as
weapons. Not surprisingly, the "threat" was grossly exaggerated, and she
even managed to quote an AOPA spokesman out of context, to boot.
Interestingly, I can't find her story on the ABC News website, so perhaps
members of the AOPA complained, or her bosses didn't think much of her
report.
---------------------------------------

[Emily]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article >,
> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
>> Roger,
>>
>>> we still live in the greatest country with the most
>>> individual freedoms on the globe.
>>>
>> The guys in Gitmo probably have a different view.
>
> That's their problem! If they hadn't illegally raised arms against us.
> they wouldn't be there!

What's wrong with raising arms against the United States in some country
besides the United States?

I might add that there are US citizens being held without trial, and if
that doesn't scare you, you need to think twice.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Roger,
>
>> we still live in the greatest country with the most
>> individual freedoms on the globe.
>>
>
> The guys in Gitmo probably have a different view.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

Thank God Gitmo is in Cuba.

[Emily]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Roger,
>>
>>> we still live in the greatest country with the most
>>> individual freedoms on the globe.
>>>
>> The guys in Gitmo probably have a different view.
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>>
>
> Thank God Gitmo is in Cuba.
>
>
Gitmo is a US military facility.

[Thomas Borchert]

Gig,

> Thank God Gitmo is in Cuba.
>

Yes, ain't that a nice little loophole the, uhm, "people" in Washington
use to pervert what used to be great American ideals?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jay Beckman]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Gig,
>
>> Thank God Gitmo is in Cuba.
>>
>
> Yes, ain't that a nice little loophole the, uhm, "people" in Washington
> use to pervert what used to be great American ideals?
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Ya know what, people in Germany really shouldn't throw stones when it comes
to the subject of another country's "moral compass."

Why don't you worry about your own problems and we'll worry about ours, ok?

**** It: screw being "PC":

Thomas, IMO, you're easily the most sanctimonious asshole on this entire
board.

It's really easy to sit in Hamburg and spout your little pithy comments
about how horrible we are and how we're destroying the world, etc. (Sort of
a "Been There, Done That, Got Das T-Shirt?)

I, for one, am tired of reading your **** (which, by the way, sounds like
nothing more than geopolitical "Penis Envy...")

"PLONK"

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ USA (<--- And Proud Of It !!!)

[Jim Macklin]

I hear the latest "torture" at Gitmo is too much good food
cooked just the way the prisoners like it. They're getting
fat. Sort of the opposite of a WWII Germany or Japanese
camp.



"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:VP9Zg.13$sW.12@fed1read09...
|
| "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in
message
| ...
| > Gig,
| >
| >> Thank God Gitmo is in Cuba.
| >>
| >
| > Yes, ain't that a nice little loophole the, uhm,
"people" in Washington
| > use to pervert what used to be great American ideals?
| >
| > --
| > Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
|
| Ya know what, people in Germany really shouldn't throw
stones when it comes
| to the subject of another country's "moral compass."
|
| Why don't you worry about your own problems and we'll
worry about ours, ok?
|
| **** It: screw being "PC":
|
| Thomas, IMO, you're easily the most sanctimonious asshole
on this entire
| board.
|
| It's really easy to sit in Hamburg and spout your little
pithy comments
| about how horrible we are and how we're destroying the
world, etc. (Sort of
| a "Been There, Done That, Got Das T-Shirt?)
|
| I, for one, am tired of reading your **** (which, by the
way, sounds like
| nothing more than geopolitical "Penis Envy...")
|
| "PLONK"
|
| Jay Beckman
| PP-ASEL
| Chandler, AZ USA (<--- And Proud Of It !!!)
|
|

[Emily]

Jay Beckman wrote:
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Gig,
>>
>>> Thank God Gitmo is in Cuba.
>>>
>> Yes, ain't that a nice little loophole the, uhm, "people" in Washington
>> use to pervert what used to be great American ideals?
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>
> Ya know what, people in Germany really shouldn't throw stones when it comes
> to the subject of another country's "moral compass."

Hmmm....does that count?

[Jim Logajan]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote:
> I hear the latest "torture" at Gitmo is too much good food
> cooked just the way the prisoners like it. They're getting
> fat. Sort of the opposite of a WWII Germany or Japanese
> camp.

According to an article in the Christian Science Monitor:

"Defense lawyers say that unlike previous wars, most of the US detainees
at Guantánamo Bay weren't captured by US soldiers on a battlefield. Many
were "sold" to the Americans by Pakistanis and Afghans seeking payment
of US bounties for Al Qaeda members even when their Al Qaeda involvement
was less than clear. Defense lawyers say this is why there may be a
significant number of innocent detainees among those being held at
Guantánamo."

If true, that would certainly explain the reason the government would
rather deny the prisoner's their day in court. The CSM article also had
this:

"Lawyers for Guantánamo detainees say that Combat Status Review
Tribunals (CSRT) fall far short of the fair procedures required in the
Hamdi case. "They are a sham," says Thomas Wilner, one of the lead
Guantánamo defense lawyers who won the Rasul case and is continuing to
litigate related issues at the federal appeals court in Washington.
"They did not give what Hamdi said you have to give - the minimal basic
due process requirement."

The requirement includes that a detainee receive prior notice of all
accusations being made against him and a fair opportunity to confront
those charges before a neutral decisionmaker.

When the evidence is classified, a declassified summary doesn't always
provide enough information to enable a detainee to defend himself,
defense lawyers say.

In one CSRT hearing, the detainee was accused of associating with a
known Al Qaeda operative in Bosnia.

"Give me his name," the detainee said.

The tribunal president said he didn't know the name.

"How can I respond to this?" the detainee asked.

"Did you know of anybody who was a member of Al Qaeda?" the tribunal
president asked.

"No, no."

The detainee added, "This is something the interrogators told me a long
while ago. I asked the interrogators to tell me who this person was....
If you tell me the name, then I can respond and defend myself against
this accusation.""

Quotes from:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/agitmo;_ylt=AqczrWAkz3jhrEO1YpFtW04DW7oF;_ylu=X3oD MTBhcmljNmVhBHNlYwNtcm5ld3M-

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> You also have to remember, certainly in the US - many pilots simply
> illegally fly over the cities (not being able to even remotely meet
> 14 CFR 91.119 (a)). It went on all the time in Houston. It's almost
> impossible to use the I-10 corridor legally in any fixed wing plane much
> bigger than a Cessna 150, and even then there were virtually no places
> you could make a forced landing without causing undue hazard to people
> or property on the ground.

And surprisingly, you don't hear of any planes landing anywhere along I-10
in Houston... Perhaps maybe the system is working acceptably and we don't
need new restrictions? Assuming that you're cruising through there at 1000
ft, you've probably got about a 1-1.5 nm to play with with regards to
finding someplace to land... Not a lot of room to play with, but it you hug
the bottom of the Class-B at a bit under 2000 ft, you've now got 2-3 nm to
play with... If it's not rush hour, you should be able to set it down on the
freeway, at worse between some cars... Hell, with the eternal road
construction in Houston, there's probably a piece of empty concrete
somewhere you can put it down on... Actually, the only case of an
off-airport landing in the Houston area that I remember was from an aircraft
(a Pitts, I believe) that had to land in the Astrodome parking lot quite a
few years ago... Best I remember, he fixed the problem (i.e. probably
refueled) and took off from the parking lot later...

During New Years Eve 2000, there were tons of planes orbiting downtown...
Some for the fireworks display, some of us just to thumb our noses at the
Y2K hysteria as it related to aviation... Of course, those of us who really
wanted to thumb our noses at it, orbited downtown at both 0000Z and at 0000
local time... You weren't required to be in contact with ATC, but Hobby
appreciated it if you did contact them... Traffic notifications were
basically, "You've got traffic EVERYWHERE"...

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> The center of Berlin is a restricted area after an ultralight pilot
> commited suicide with his plane on the lawn in front of what amounts to
> the German version of the House of Congress. The f***ing self-centered
> idiot...

So, now it's against the law to commit suicide from an aircraft on the lawn
of the German House of Congress? Hmmm... I'm not so certain that this would
stop someone who was wanting to commit suicide... BTW, what are they going
to do, shoot him down? Either way, he gets his wish, doesn't he?
<sick-grin>

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:zwXXg.2966$XX2.1182@dukeread04...
> A [the] minimum altitude must be high enough to allow you to
> maneuver and land safely if the engine fails and never lower
> than 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle/building within
> 2,000 feet laterally.

You're over water, you can always ditch it and swim to shore... Yeah, it
would be nice to be able to reuse the plane after your emergency "landing",
but it's quite possible that the safest thing might be to just put it in the
river...

[Thomas Borchert]

Grumman-581,

> So, now it's against the law to commit suicide from an aircraft on the lawn
> of the German House of Congress? Hmmm... I'm not so certain that this would
> stop someone who was wanting to commit suicide... BTW, what are they going
> to do, shoot him down? Either way, he gets his wish, doesn't he?
>

Oh, don't worry, politicians here are just as knee-jerk and dumb as they are
over there.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jim Macklin]

Agreed, then there is an exception for water and sparsely
populated areas.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Grumman-581" > wrote
in message ...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:zwXXg.2966$XX2.1182@dukeread04...
| > A [the] minimum altitude must be high enough to allow
you to
| > maneuver and land safely if the engine fails and never
lower
| > than 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle/building
within
| > 2,000 feet laterally.
|
| You're over water, you can always ditch it and swim to
shore... Yeah, it
| would be nice to be able to reuse the plane after your
emergency "landing",
| but it's quite possible that the safest thing might be to
just put it in the
| river...
|
|

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-10-18, Grumman-581 <grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM> wrote:
> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> You also have to remember, certainly in the US - many pilots simply
>> illegally fly over the cities (not being able to even remotely meet
>> 14 CFR 91.119 (a)). It went on all the time in Houston. It's almost
>> impossible to use the I-10 corridor legally in any fixed wing plane much
>> bigger than a Cessna 150, and even then there were virtually no places
>> you could make a forced landing without causing undue hazard to people
>> or property on the ground.
>
> And surprisingly, you don't hear of any planes landing anywhere along I-10
> in Houston... Perhaps maybe the system is working acceptably and we don't
> need new restrictions?

Oh, I agree we don't need any new restrictions - no one was arguing for
that. Regardless of whether planes are making forced landings in densely
populated areas is irrelevant - there are still many flights in
violation of 14 CFR 91.119 (a). The regulation is already there. It's
just not actually enforced as far as I can tell. Whether people are
traversing the I-10 corridor without incident or not has absolutely no
bearing on whether that regulation is being violated.

As I said, there is a subset of single engined GA aircraft that CAN
traverse the I-10 corridor or generally overfly the most densely
populated areas of the city without violating 14 CFR 91.119 (a) since
Houston has more than copious share of scraps of wasteland. But there's
plenty who can't meet 14 CFR 91.119 (a) but go ahead and violate it
anyway - they probably won't have an engine failure and will probably
get away with it, especially since the regulation is apparently not
enforced.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Dylan Smith > wrote:

> As I said, there is a subset of single engined GA aircraft that CAN
> traverse the I-10 corridor or generally overfly the most densely
> populated areas of the city without violating 14 CFR 91.119 (a) since
> Houston has more than copious share of scraps of wasteland. But there's
> plenty who can't meet 14 CFR 91.119 (a) but go ahead and violate it
> anyway - they probably won't have an engine failure and will probably
> get away with it, especially since the regulation is apparently not
> enforced.

But what does "undue hazard" mean? Surely it can't mean "any hazard",
so how much hazard is acceptable?

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

[John Theune]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2006-10-18, Grumman-581 <grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM> wrote:
>> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> You also have to remember, certainly in the US - many pilots simply
>>> illegally fly over the cities (not being able to even remotely meet
>>> 14 CFR 91.119 (a)). It went on all the time in Houston. It's almost
>>> impossible to use the I-10 corridor legally in any fixed wing plane much
>>> bigger than a Cessna 150, and even then there were virtually no places
>>> you could make a forced landing without causing undue hazard to people
>>> or property on the ground.
>> And surprisingly, you don't hear of any planes landing anywhere along I-10
>> in Houston... Perhaps maybe the system is working acceptably and we don't
>> need new restrictions?
>
> Oh, I agree we don't need any new restrictions - no one was arguing for
> that. Regardless of whether planes are making forced landings in densely
> populated areas is irrelevant - there are still many flights in
> violation of 14 CFR 91.119 (a). The regulation is already there. It's
> just not actually enforced as far as I can tell. Whether people are
> traversing the I-10 corridor without incident or not has absolutely no
> bearing on whether that regulation is being violated.
>
> As I said, there is a subset of single engined GA aircraft that CAN
> traverse the I-10 corridor or generally overfly the most densely
> populated areas of the city without violating 14 CFR 91.119 (a) since
> Houston has more than copious share of scraps of wasteland. But there's
> plenty who can't meet 14 CFR 91.119 (a) but go ahead and violate it
> anyway - they probably won't have an engine failure and will probably
> get away with it, especially since the regulation is apparently not
> enforced.
>
Since it appears that there are conflicting regulations at work here, I
wonder which one wins? 91.119 or the follow the airspace rules as
defined by the charts rule? Does 91.119 apply when you have altitude
above you but not if your restricted due to airspace? I'm going to
guess that it boils down to the phrase " Undue Hazard". It does say
landing without undue hazard it does not say must land without any
damage to ground or people.

[Emily]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Grumman-581,
>
>> So, now it's against the law to commit suicide from an aircraft on the lawn
>> of the German House of Congress? Hmmm... I'm not so certain that this would
>> stop someone who was wanting to commit suicide... BTW, what are they going
>> to do, shoot him down? Either way, he gets his wish, doesn't he?
>>
>
> Oh, don't worry, politicians here are just as knee-jerk and dumb as they are
> over there.
>
I'm not sure if that's comforting or not.

Problem is, the people who want to commit suicide by using airplanes
makes it rough on the rest of us.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote:
>> I hear the latest "torture" at Gitmo is too much good food
>> cooked just the way the prisoners like it. They're getting
>> fat. Sort of the opposite of a WWII Germany or Japanese
>> camp.
>
> According to an article in the Christian Science Monitor:
>
> "Defense lawyers say that unlike previous wars, most of the US detainees
> at Guantánamo Bay weren't captured by US soldiers on a battlefield. Many
> were "sold" to the Americans by Pakistanis and Afghans seeking payment
> of US bounties for Al Qaeda members even when their Al Qaeda involvement
> was less than clear. Defense lawyers say this is why there may be a
> significant number of innocent detainees among those being held at
> Guantánamo."
>
> If true, that would certainly explain the reason the government would
> rather deny the prisoner's their day in court. The CSM article also had
> this:
>
> "Lawyers for Guantánamo detainees say that Combat Status Review
> Tribunals (CSRT) fall far short of the fair procedures required in the
> Hamdi case. "They are a sham," says Thomas Wilner, one of the lead
> Guantánamo defense lawyers who won the Rasul case and is continuing to
> litigate related issues at the federal appeals court in Washington.
> "They did not give what Hamdi said you have to give - the minimal basic
> due process requirement."
>
> The requirement includes that a detainee receive prior notice of all
> accusations being made against him and a fair opportunity to confront
> those charges before a neutral decisionmaker.
>
> When the evidence is classified, a declassified summary doesn't always
> provide enough information to enable a detainee to defend himself,
> defense lawyers say.
>
> In one CSRT hearing, the detainee was accused of associating with a
> known Al Qaeda operative in Bosnia.
>
> "Give me his name," the detainee said.
>
> The tribunal president said he didn't know the name.
>
> "How can I respond to this?" the detainee asked.
>
> "Did you know of anybody who was a member of Al Qaeda?" the tribunal
> president asked.
>
> "No, no."
>
> The detainee added, "This is something the interrogators told me a long
> while ago. I asked the interrogators to tell me who this person was....
> If you tell me the name, then I can respond and defend myself against
> this accusation.""
>


You do realize that virtually every statement in the article starts with the
phrase "Defense lawyers say..."

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Grumman-581,
>
> > So, now it's against the law to commit suicide from an aircraft on the lawn
> > of the German House of Congress? Hmmm... I'm not so certain that this would
> > stop someone who was wanting to commit suicide... BTW, what are they going
> > to do, shoot him down? Either way, he gets his wish, doesn't he?
> >
>
> Oh, don't worry, politicians here are just as knee-jerk and dumb as they are
> over there.

IMHO, they are even MORE knee-jerk and dumb there, as they have a
powerful Green Party there!

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Grumman-581,
>
>
>>So, now it's against the law to commit suicide from an aircraft on the lawn
>>of the German House of Congress? Hmmm... I'm not so certain that this would
>>stop someone who was wanting to commit suicide... BTW, what are they going
>>to do, shoot him down? Either way, he gets his wish, doesn't he?
>>
>
>
> Oh, don't worry, politicians here are just as knee-jerk and dumb as they are
> over there.

That seems to be the one world-wide cultural invariant.

Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"John Theune" > wrote in message
news:j5pZg.5298$Z46.4152@trndny05...
>
> Since it appears that there are conflicting regulations at work here, I
> wonder which one wins? 91.119 or the follow the airspace rules as defined
> by the charts rule? Does 91.119 apply when you have altitude above you
> but not if your restricted due to airspace? I'm going to guess that it
> boils down to the phrase " Undue Hazard". It does say landing without
> undue hazard it does not say must land without any damage to ground or
> people.
>

How do you see conflicting regulations at work here?

[John Theune]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "John Theune" > wrote in message
> news:j5pZg.5298$Z46.4152@trndny05...
>> Since it appears that there are conflicting regulations at work here, I
>> wonder which one wins? 91.119 or the follow the airspace rules as defined
>> by the charts rule? Does 91.119 apply when you have altitude above you
>> but not if your restricted due to airspace? I'm going to guess that it
>> boils down to the phrase " Undue Hazard". It does say landing without
>> undue hazard it does not say must land without any damage to ground or
>> people.
>>
>
> How do you see conflicting regulations at work here?
>
>
119 and it's requirement to be at a altitude that allows a landing
without undue risk to ground and the airspace restriction that says no
more then 1100 feet.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"John Theune" > wrote in message
news:9oAZg.6125$qv6.4773@trnddc06...
>
> 119 and it's requirement to be at a altitude that allows a landing without
> undue risk to ground and the airspace restriction that says no more then
> 1100 feet.
>

What airspace restriction says no more then 1100 feet?

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Problem is, the people who want to commit suicide by using airplanes
> makes it rough on the rest of us.

Well, in this case, the problem is not the people who are wanting to commit
suicide by aircraft but rather the people who have a knee-jerk reaction to
it... Of course, these types of people have never been accused of rational
though anyway, so it's not very easy to reason with them...

[John Theune]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "John Theune" > wrote in message
> news:9oAZg.6125$qv6.4773@trnddc06...
>> 119 and it's requirement to be at a altitude that allows a landing without
>> undue risk to ground and the airspace restriction that says no more then
>> 1100 feet.
>>
>
> What airspace restriction says no more then 1100 feet?
>
>
This discussion started on the East River flyway and also included the
Houston flyway.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-10-18, Bob Noel > wrote:
> But what does "undue hazard" mean? Surely it can't mean "any hazard",
> so how much hazard is acceptable?

Sadly - we will only discover that when the FAA prosecutes someone.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Dylan Smith > wrote:

> > But what does "undue hazard" mean? Surely it can't mean "any hazard",
> > so how much hazard is acceptable?
>
> Sadly - we will only discover that when the FAA prosecutes someone.

so why do you say that everyone using the corridors are in violation
of the FAR?

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

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-10-19, Bob Noel > wrote:
> In article >,
> Dylan Smith > wrote:
>> Sadly - we will only discover that when the FAA prosecutes someone.
>
> so why do you say that everyone using the corridors are in violation
> of the FAR?

I didn't say that at all.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Dylan Smith > wrote:

> >> Sadly - we will only discover that when the FAA prosecutes someone.
> >
> > so why do you say that everyone using the corridors are in violation
> > of the FAR?
>
> I didn't say that at all.

my mistake, you didn't specify corridors only (even though you said "it went
on all the time in Houston. It's almost impossible to use the I-10 corridor
legally in any fixed wing plane much bigger than a Cessna 150."
You talked about flying over cities. So, my question is given that you
don't know what "undue hazard means", why do you say that everyone
flying over cities are in violation of the 91.119(a)?

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

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-10-19, Bob Noel > wrote:
> my mistake, you didn't specify corridors only (even though you said "it went
> on all the time in Houston. It's almost impossible to use the I-10 corridor
> legally in any fixed wing plane much bigger than a Cessna 150."
> You talked about flying over cities. So, my question is given that you
> don't know what "undue hazard means", why do you say that everyone
> flying over cities are in violation of the 91.119(a)?

We don't know for sure - but it's reasonable to assume that flying over
a place where the only outlanding options are densely populated with
people or people driving cars would, if your engine quit, cause an undue
hazard to these people.

What the FAA decides is ultimately very difficult to know. For some
violations, it attacks with zeal. For others, it simply turns a blind
eye even though it would be reasonable to argue that the reg was
violated.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article >,
Dylan Smith > wrote:
>On 2006-10-19, Bob Noel > wrote:
>> my mistake, you didn't specify corridors only (even though you said "it went
>> on all the time in Houston. It's almost impossible to use the I-10 corridor
>> legally in any fixed wing plane much bigger than a Cessna 150."
>> You talked about flying over cities. So, my question is given that you
>> don't know what "undue hazard means", why do you say that everyone
>> flying over cities are in violation of the 91.119(a)?
>
>We don't know for sure - but it's reasonable to assume that flying over
>a place where the only outlanding options are densely populated with
>people or people driving cars would, if your engine quit, cause an undue
>hazard to these people.

Can you do better than that? Why is it reasonable to make that assumption?
Do the FARs speak to what they mean when they say "undue hazard"? Can
you back this up with citations?

yours,
Michael



--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix narrowwares
Bowie, MD, USA | http://whitewolfandphoenix.com
Proud member of the SCA Internet Whitewash Squad

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"John Theune" > wrote in message
news:kaJZg.3974$9z6.926@trndny03...
>
> This discussion started on the East River flyway and also included the
> Houston flyway.
>

What airspace restriction says no more then 1100 feet?

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:56:43 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>On 2006-10-18, Bob Noel > wrote:
>> But what does "undue hazard" mean? Surely it can't mean "any hazard",
>> so how much hazard is acceptable?

Look at the traffic patterns for the airports.
They bring the little guys and big iron in over heavily populated
areas in an almost steady string. I'm far more comfortable with the
little guy flying around overhead than a jetliner. If he goes down
the little guy can break a few windows or start a fire, but a jet
liner can clean out a city block or just plain take out a lot of
territory.
OTOH The chances of either happening are very small. For a city the
size of NY with only two planes in the history of aviation hitting a
high rise is pretty remarkable. Also note the only deaths were the
pilot and copilot.

There is very little hazard from small planes flying overhead and the
damage one can do is miniscule compared to a jetliner.

>
>Sadly - we will only discover that when the FAA prosecutes someone.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com