More political BS .... Thanks CNN

[Flyin'[email protected]]

New York crash prompts calls for airspace restrictions...

Here's the link
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15247117/from/RS.3/

I saved the "good" stuff below...

EVERY time there is an accident the media gets the facts all bent out of
shape, the politicians go into overdrive spewing their re-election routine,
and the ignorant public starts ranting about things which they do not know.

It gets really old having people constantly attack a pasttime which I hold
so close to my heart.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

NEW YORK - Federal officials on Friday were winding down their onsite
investigation of the crash of New York Yankees pitcher Corey Lidle’s plane
into a skyscraper and said they were reviewing rules that allow small
aircraft to fly in Manhattan’s crowded airspace.

The general aviation corridors around Manhattan have been “the Wild West,”
said Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y. He and Sen. Charles Schumer said anyone
flying near the island should be under the supervision of air traffic
controllers, especially in the post-Sept. 11 era.

“A smart terrorist could load up a small, little plane with biological,
chemical or even nuclear material and fly up the Hudson or East rivers, no
questions asked,” said Schumer, D-N.Y. “I hope this will be a wake-up call
to the FAA to re-examine flight patterns, which, amazingly enough, they
haven’t done since 9/11.”

New York’s Republican governor, George Pataki, also said the Federal
Aviation Administration “needs to take a much tougher line” about private,
or general aviation, flights over the city.

FAA spokeswoman Laura J. Brown said Thursday the agency has decided to
review those guidelines and flight restrictions.

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Flyin'[email protected]]

wrote:
Errr.... I mean thanks MSNBC... Oh well... they are all the same anyway...

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[xeM]

On 13 Oct 2006 16:26:27 GMT, wrote:

>New York crash prompts calls for airspace restrictions...
>
>Here's the link
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15247117/from/RS.3/
>
>I saved the "good" stuff below...
>
>EVERY time there is an accident the media gets the facts all bent out of
>shape, the politicians go into overdrive spewing their re-election routine,
>and the ignorant public starts ranting about things which they do not know.
>
>It gets really old having people constantly attack a pasttime which I hold
>so close to my heart.


So your blaming the news media - CNN or MSNBC or whoever, for
reporting what the clueless elected officials are saying?

[Flyin'[email protected]]

The media is to blame for their own stupidity.
The politicians only believe what they think the public wants them to
believe. Both attack GA out of pure ignorance.

You missed the point of the entire post.

> So your blaming the news media - CNN or MSNBC or whoever, for
> reporting what the clueless elected officials are saying?

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[xeM]

On 13 Oct 2006 17:35:49 GMT, wrote:

>The media is to blame for their own stupidity.
>The politicians only believe what they think the public wants them to
>believe. Both attack GA out of pure ignorance.
>
>You missed the point of the entire post.
>
>> So your blaming the news media - CNN or MSNBC or whoever, for
>> reporting what the clueless elected officials are saying?


No, I think I nailed the point of the post, which was to blame the
news media for bad reporting at a minimum,( or all the ills of the
world at a maximum), for simply quoting what some of the politicians
are saying / considering due to the recent crash in NYC. I'm not a
big fan of the news media either, with the current '24 hours / we must
be sensational and get ratings' standard of journalism, but in this
case it appears that they quoted the politicians accurately.
I do agree with your statement that stupidity certainly seems to lie
in the lap of the politicians and by extension, the people who elected
them.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The general aviation corridors around Manhattan have been “the Wild West,�
> said Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y. He and Sen. Charles Schumer said anyone
> flying near the island should be under the supervision of air traffic
> controllers, especially in the post-Sept. 11 era.
>
> “A smart terrorist could load up a small, little plane with biological,
> chemical or even nuclear material and fly up the Hudson or East rivers, no
> questions asked,� said Schumer, D-N.Y. “I hope this will be a wake-up call
> to the FAA to re-examine flight patterns, which, amazingly enough, they
> haven’t done since 9/11.�

Putting small aircraft under mandatory air traffic control would have
absolutely no effect at all on the risk of terrorism.

> New York’s Republican governor, George Pataki, also said the Federal
> Aviation Administration “needs to take a much tougher line� about private,
> or general aviation, flights over the city.

Except when the flights are transporting him, I presume.

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

[gatt]

> wrote in message
...

> The general aviation corridors around Manhattan have been "the Wild West,"
> said Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y. He and Sen. Charles Schumer said anyone
> flying near the island should be under the supervision of air traffic
> controllers, especially in the post-Sept. 11 era.

CNN is responsible for what politicians say?

Actually, what CNN did last night was take a Cirrus up and recreate the
flight including trying to make the turn...the difference is, CNN did it at
2000 feet, which is what sane pilots would do, such that they didn't tangle
their prop in anybody's furniture. I thought that was pretty cool of them.


-c

[gatt]

> wrote in message
...
> The media is to blame for their own stupidity.

Then why quote what politicians say as if the media said it? Why not
actually quote what the media said?

I'll remind everybody again that last night, CNN aired footage of the
reporter flying a Cirrus through the same course. The difference is, of
course, they had permissioned to enter the Class B and flew at an altitude
sufficient to keep their prop out of people's bedrooms.

> You missed the point of the entire post.

Then you didn't make it. You said "More political BS" and then thanked CNN
for what politicians said, and then said, oh, sorry, MSNBCWhatever, and then
said the media is to blame.

If there's a point, could you restate it more precisely? Thanks.

-c

[gatt]

"xeM" > wrote in message
...

> No, I think I nailed the point of the post, which was to blame the
> news media for bad reporting at a minimum,

By quoting politicians?


-c

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

gatt wrote:
> I thought that was pretty cool of them.

That's because I'm sure it was quite easy for them to do. <G>

A CNN reporter, Miles O'Brien, owns his own SR20.

[Flyin'[email protected]]

> CNN is responsible for what politicians say?

You have got to be kidding me...


> Actually, what CNN did last night was take a Cirrus up and recreate the
> flight including trying to make the turn...the difference is, CNN did it
> at 2000 feet, which is what sane pilots would do, such that they didn't
> tangle their prop in anybody's furniture. I thought that was pretty cool
> of them.

The max altitude through the VFR airway is 1100 ft. Kinda difficult to do
2000ft if the maximum allowed VFR is 1100 ft.

Of course, less than 1100 ft is not safe by my standards...

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Flyin'[email protected]]

"gatt" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > The media is to blame for their own stupidity.
>
> Then why quote what politicians say as if the media said it? Why not
> actually quote what the media said?

In general, the media (especially CNN by the way) holds GA in a bad light
in case you have not noticed.

> > You missed the point of the entire post.
>
> Then you didn't make it. You said "More political BS" and then thanked
> CNN for what politicians said, and then said, oh, sorry, MSNBCWhatever,
> and then said the media is to blame.
>
> If there's a point, could you restate it more precisely?

The CNN/MSNBC was a typo... You know... a mistake... Though by reading the
article it sure stinks of CNN...

Here's the point...

When there is a GA accident, the media crawls all over looking for the most
ignorant person they can find and give them the spotlight. Again, it is
obvious with this latest accident. To compound the blatent disregard of
journalistic responsibility of the media, they hand the mic over to the
politicians to spew their re-election garbage... Yada Yada Yada more GA
regulations blah blah blah... The media gives the politicians the forum by
which to exploit a tragic situation. It is disgusting.

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Flyin'[email protected]]

> Actually, what CNN did last night was take a Cirrus up and recreate the
> flight including trying to make the turn...the difference is, CNN did it
> at 2000 feet, which is what sane pilots would do, such that they didn't
> tangle their prop in anybody's furniture. I thought that was pretty cool
> of them.

For CNN to do that is certainly not typical. One would expect the story to
go something like this:

"We were going to take this plane through the same area of the accident,
but GA is much to dangerous for us to do that. Instead we thought we would
re-enact through this sophisticated flight training software."

<Insert picture of MS Flight Sim Here>

<Show Flight at excessive speed in a high G turn in narrow passage here>

------

If they did infact fly through at 2kft on a GA aircraft, I commend them
because it is certainly not what one is accustomed to seeing from CNN.

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[gatt]

> wrote in message
...

>> Then why quote what politicians say as if the media said it? Why not
>> actually quote what the media said?
>
> In general, the media (especially CNN by the way) holds GA in a bad light
> in case you have not noticed.

My question remains. Why did you quote politicians if your target is the
media?

> The CNN/MSNBC was a typo... You know... a mistake... Though by reading
> the
> article it sure stinks of CNN...

In other words, you make mistakes too. You're still saying CNN/MSNBC but
quoting politicians instead of, oh, say, CNN or MSNBC.

> When there is a GA accident, the media crawls all over looking for the
> most ignorant person they can find and give them the spotlight.

No, they really don't. This smacks of black helicopter conspiracy theory
and unfounded generalization. Show me a single directive where any news
source ever has said "go find the most ignorant person they can find."

What I'll do is, in the meantime, refer to CNN flying an Actual Cirrus along
the Actual Course last night which, by the way, I suspect you yourself have
not done.

> To compound the blatent disregard of journalistic responsibility of the
> media, they hand the mic over to the
> politicians to spew their re-election garbage...

Please describe and cite this alleged journalistic "responsibility."

-c

[gatt]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
et...
> gatt wrote:
>> I thought that was pretty cool of them.
>
> That's because I'm sure it was quite easy for them to do. <G>
>
> A CNN reporter, Miles O'Brien, owns his own SR20.

Oh, he must be part of the vast anti-GA media conspiracy then.
Y'know..."finding the most ignorant person" to comment and all of that.

-c

[gatt]

> wrote in message
...

> The max altitude through the VFR airway is 1100 ft. Kinda difficult to do
> 2000ft if the maximum allowed VFR is 1100 ft.
>
> Of course, less than 1100 ft is not safe by my standards...

They shouldn't do it then.

Safety should not be regulated. If you can't fly your friggin' airplane
without augering into the side of an apartment building, you shouldn't be
flying your airplane around apartment buildings.

Otherwise, the FAA is gonna figure they need to make a law because pilots
can't control themselves.


-c

[Flyin'[email protected]]

> My question remains. Why did you quote politicians if your target is the
> media?

I quoted the article from MSNBC.... VERBTIM.


> In other words, you make mistakes too. You're still saying CNN/MSNBC but
> quoting politicians instead of, oh, say, CNN or MSNBC.

I never claimed I do not make mistakes.


> > When there is a GA accident, the media crawls all over looking for the
> > most ignorant person they can find and give them the spotlight.
>
> No, they really don't. This smacks of black helicopter conspiracy theory
> and unfounded generalization. Show me a single directive where any news
> source ever has said "go find the most ignorant person they can find."

You have got to be kidding me... <shaking head>


> What I'll do is, in the meantime, refer to CNN flying an Actual Cirrus
> along the Actual Course last night which, by the way, I suspect you
> yourself have not done.

Nope. It's on the other side of the country from me.


> > To compound the blatent disregard of journalistic responsibility of the
> > media, they hand the mic over to the
> > politicians to spew their re-election garbage...
>
> Please describe and cite this alleged journalistic "responsibility."

There are many sources available that will describe this. Try a google
search and see for yourself...

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

> wrote in message
...
> New York crash prompts calls for airspace restrictions...
>
> Here's the link
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15247117/from/RS.3/
>
<...>
> New York's Republican governor, George Pataki, also said the Federal
> Aviation Administration "needs to take a much tougher line" about private,
> or general aviation, flights over the city.
>
> FAA spokeswoman Laura J. Brown said Thursday the agency has decided to
> review those guidelines and flight restrictions.
>

Lets see, a big airliner hits a building (for whatever reason) and thousands
die.

A small airplane hits a building (for whatever reason), and the occupants of
the airplane die.

Who should be restricted from flying over the city?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Safety should not be regulated. If you can't fly your friggin' airplane
> without augering into the side of an apartment building, you shouldn't be
> flying your airplane around apartment buildings.

As a pilot-in-command, you're legally permitted to do anything
necessary to ensure the safety of your aircraft and the people aboard
(keeping the safety of others in mind as well, of course), and this
includes ignoring regulations if necessary. However, you have a lot
of explaining to do later on if you break the rules, in some cases.

While you're PIC, then, you're master and commander, subject to a
possible review of your good judgement after you land, if you decide
to break the rules in the name of safety in your own sovereign
estimation.

This is important because you can conceivably do anything if you can
show that safety required it at the time. In this particular, case,
though, as in most cases where regulations are potentially violated,
the safety argument might not work (you can do what you need to remain
safe, but that won't justify carelessly putting yourself in danger in
the first place, when it comes time to review what you did).

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

[gatt]

> wrote in message
...

>> > When there is a GA accident, the media crawls all over looking for the
>> > most ignorant person they can find and give them the spotlight.
>>
>> No, they really don't. This smacks of black helicopter conspiracy theory
>> and unfounded generalization. Show me a single directive where any news
>> source ever has said "go find the most ignorant person they can find."
>
> You have got to be kidding me... <shaking head>

No, I assure you I mean it. Show me a single directive where any news
source have ever sent a reporter to "find the most ignorant person--"

Hey...waitaminnit...you just said you don't even WATCH THE NEWS.

>> Please describe and cite this alleged journalistic "responsibility."
>
> There are many sources available that will describe this. Try a google
> search and see for yourself...

I have a degree in journalism and a I'm a former magazine and radio news
editor. Be that as it may, I will never be required to back your claims up
for you. In the real world, we do our own homework.

-c

[gatt]

> wrote in message
...
>> Actually, what CNN did last night was take a Cirrus up and recreate the
>> flight including trying to make the turn...the difference is, CNN did it
>> at 2000 feet, which is what sane pilots would do, such that they didn't
>> tangle their prop in anybody's furniture. I thought that was pretty cool
>> of them.
>
> For CNN to do that is certainly not typical. One would expect the story
> to
> go something like this:

You said you don't watch the news. How do you know this then?


> "We were going to take this plane through the same area of the accident,
> but GA is much to dangerous for us to do that.

That's not what they said at all. Your ignorance is showing.

>Instead we thought we would re-enact through this sophisticated flight
>training software."

But they didn't. They flew an actual Cirrus through the course, except at a
higher altitude so that, gee whiz, if it turned out the Cirrus couldn't make
that turn, they wouldn't fly into the same building.

Seems altogether reasonable to me. A lot more than somebody who claimed
they don't watch the news explaining how CNN reports something to somebody
who just told them what CNN reported.

> If they did infact fly through at 2kft on a GA aircraft, I commend them
> because it is certainly not what one is accustomed to seeing from CNN.

Yeah, well, according to "one", "one" doesn't watch the news. So I'm a
little curious here about how much "one" doesn't in fact watch the news.

-c

[gatt]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

>> Safety should not be regulated. If you can't fly your friggin' airplane
>> without augering into the side of an apartment building, you shouldn't be
>> flying your airplane around apartment buildings.
>
> As a pilot-in-command, you're legally permitted to do anything
> necessary to ensure the safety of your aircraft and the people aboard
> (keeping the safety of others in mind as well, of course), and this
> includes ignoring regulations if necessary.

Yes, we know this.

One thing that would ensure the safety of the aircraft and people aboard
would be to stay clear of apartment buildings. For example, I fly over
downtown Portland and the west hills all the time. There a "canyon" between
the west hills and the buildings of Portland that's maybe 2000' or
more...probably closer to a mile. I find that Portland is just as
spectacular at 3000' then at 1500' and, if I needed to get closer or risk
violating airspace restrictions, I find that PDX tower is perfectly
reasonable and willing to issue appropriate vectors and clearance.

It might be a lot of fun to fly between the buildings and the west hills,
but, beyond the interest of the public and GA, I have My Own Ass to think
about.

-c

[gatt]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in message
news:qOCdncRmE9rDYrLYnZ2dnUVZ_u-

>> FAA spokeswoman Laura J. Brown said Thursday the agency has decided to
>> review those guidelines and flight restrictions.
>>

> Lets see, a big airliner hits a building (for whatever reason) and
> thousands die.
>
> A small airplane hits a building (for whatever reason), and the occupants
> of the airplane die.
>
> Who should be restricted from flying over the city?

It's a trick question. Airliners don't fly up that corridor and haven't
flown into any buildings there except when regulations and laws were already
broken. (Like another poster said, I don't think Osama's gonna call off a
hijacking because it's an airspace violation.)

One was deliberate. The other was accidental.

-c
"If you'd wish to be a gray-haired wonder/keep your nose out of people's
apartments"

[Flyin'[email protected]]

> No, I assure you I mean it. Show me a single directive where any news
> source have ever sent a reporter to "find the most ignorant person--"
>
> Hey...waitaminnit...you just said you don't even WATCH THE NEWS.

Huh??? Not me....

> I have a degree in journalism and a I'm a former magazine and radio news
> editor. Be that as it may, I will never be required to back your claims
> up for you. In the real world, we do our own homework.

Funny... I was thinking EXACTLY the same thing when you asked me to define
Journalistic Responsibility.


I am done here...

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Flyin'[email protected]]

> Yeah, well, according to "one", "one" doesn't watch the news. So I'm a
> little curious here about how much "one" doesn't in fact watch the news.

Where did you get that from?????

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[gatt]

> wrote in message
...
>> No, I assure you I mean it. Show me a single directive where any news
>> source have ever sent a reporter to "find the most ignorant person--"
>>
>> Hey...waitaminnit...you just said you don't even WATCH THE NEWS.
>
> Huh??? Not me....

Well, unfortunately, I'm going to have to expose you as either a liar or
memory-challenged. Because, on the 12th you wrote:

"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."

So which is it? You don't watch the news, or you only watch it by accident,
or what? How would you like to change your story, Senator?

>> Be that as it may, I will never be required to back your claims
>> up for you. In the real world, we do our own homework.
>
> Funny... I was thinking EXACTLY the same thing when you asked me to define
> Journalistic Responsibility.

You're the one that brought up the term "journalistic responsibility," not
me. You shouldn't use words and terms you can't define if you expect to be
taken seriously.

> I am done here...

I bet you are.

-c

[gatt]

> wrote in message
...
>> Yeah, well, according to "one", "one" doesn't watch the news. So I'm a
>> little curious here about how much "one" doesn't in fact watch the news.
>
> Where did you get that from?????

Once again, YOU:

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

Take note of your BS so it's not used against you next time.

-c

[gatt]

> wrote in message
...
>> Yeah, well, according to "one", "one" doesn't watch the news. So I'm a
>> little curious here about how much "one" doesn't in fact watch the news.
>
> Where did you get that from?????

You:

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

Is there some reason why we should all doubt your word? I mean, except that
you can't seem to keep track of it?

-c

[Mike 'Flyin'8']

> wrote in message
...
>>> No, I assure you I mean it. Show me a single directive where any news
>>> source have ever sent a reporter to "find the most ignorant person--"
>>>
>>> Hey...waitaminnit...you just said you don't even WATCH THE NEWS.
>>
>> Huh??? Not me....
>
>Well, unfortunately, I'm going to have to expose you as either a liar or
>memory-challenged. Because, on the 12th you wrote:
>
>"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."
>
>So which is it? You don't watch the news, or you only watch it by accident,
>or what? How would you like to change your story, Senator?
>

PSSST... You have mistaken me for someone else."


>>> Be that as it may, I will never be required to back your claims
>>> up for you. In the real world, we do our own homework.
>>
>> Funny... I was thinking EXACTLY the same thing when you asked me to define
>> Journalistic Responsibility.
>
>You're the one that brought up the term "journalistic responsibility," not
>me. You shouldn't use words and terms you can't define if you expect to be
>taken seriously.
>
>> I am done here...
>
>I bet you are.
>

<Shaking head>
The Ultimate BBS!
Telnet://ubbs2006.synchro.net
HTTP://ubbs2006.synchro.net:81

[Mike 'Flyin'8']

Go back and take a look at your source of the quote. I am certain you
will find that you have falsely accused me of something I never said.

>>> Yeah, well, according to "one", "one" doesn't watch the news. So I'm a
>>> little curious here about how much "one" doesn't in fact watch the news.
>>
>> Where did you get that from?????
>
>You:
>
>"It was then that I lost total respect for the media and since then I have
>never intentionally sat down to watch the news."
>
>Is there some reason why we should all doubt your word? I mean, except that
>you can't seem to keep track of it?
>
>-c
>

The Ultimate BBS!
Telnet://ubbs2006.synchro.net
HTTP://ubbs2006.synchro.net:81

[gatt]

"Mike 'Flyin'8'" > wrote in message
...
> Go back and take a look at your source of the quote. I am certain you
> will find that you have falsely accused me of something I never said.

I have checked, and you are correct, for which I apologize.

The rest of my argument stands.

-c

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:58:08 +0000, gatt wrote:

>> No, I think I nailed the point of the post, which was to blame the news
>> media for bad reporting at a minimum,
>
> By quoting politicians?

When you put it that way, yes. Could you find a less reliable source for
information? I'd be hard-pressed to try.

It would be different if the reporters were honest about it.

"Here's reporter John Doe with another sample of mindless spew from city
councilcritter Hendme Urcash."

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:28:19 +0000, Flyin'8 wrote:

> The max altitude through the VFR airway is 1100 ft. Kinda difficult to do
> 2000ft if the maximum allowed VFR is 1100 ft.

It is not correct that the maximum allowed VFR is 1100 ft.

[If I were Steve I'd stop now. I can see the temptation sometimes <laugh>.]

I've flown over the East River VFR before at 2000 (or perhaps a little
higher). It just involves talking to one of the nice controllers at LGA.

I'm sure you - and any other pilot - know this; you were just being a
little lazy with your terminology. But who knows: some reporter might
read this thread someday.

I'd hate for us to be responsible for more misinformation. That would
make us no better than many politicians.

- Andrew

[.Blueskies.]

"xeM" > wrote in message ...
: On 13 Oct 2006 17:35:49 GMT, wrote:
:
: >The media is to blame for their own stupidity.
: >The politicians only believe what they think the public wants them to
: >believe. Both attack GA out of pure ignorance.
: >
: >You missed the point of the entire post.
: >
: >> So your blaming the news media - CNN or MSNBC or whoever, for
: >> reporting what the clueless elected officials are saying?
:
:
: No, I think I nailed the point of the post, which was to blame the
: news media for bad reporting at a minimum,( or all the ills of the
: world at a maximum), for simply quoting what some of the politicians
: are saying / considering due to the recent crash in NYC. I'm not a
: big fan of the news media either, with the current '24 hours / we must
: be sensational and get ratings' standard of journalism, but in this
: case it appears that they quoted the politicians accurately.
: I do agree with your statement that stupidity certainly seems to lie
: in the lap of the politicians and by extension, the people who elected
: them.
:
:

It is one of those self fulfilling prophesy sort of things. First someone sees plane, someone else yells. Report comes
in planes yelling. The politician says yelling is not allowed, so the news says no yelling. The plane flies by, yell
occurs, therefore the plane causes yelling and must be banned according to the politician. The new quotes the
politician, the opponent sees the popularity of the quote and says it also. The news builds it up again.

I hate politics...

[gatt]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...

>> The max altitude through the VFR airway is 1100 ft. Kinda difficult to
>> do
>> 2000ft if the maximum allowed VFR is 1100 ft.
>
> It is not correct that the maximum allowed VFR is 1100 ft.

> I'm sure you - and any other pilot - know this; you were just being a
> little lazy with your terminology. But who knows: some reporter might
> read this thread someday.
>
> I'd hate for us to be responsible for more misinformation.


Very nicely stated!

-c

[Mike 'Flyin'8']

Hmmm... As Gatt said... Nicely said.

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:26:15 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:28:19 +0000, Flyin'8 wrote:
>[i]
>> The max altitude through the VFR airway is 1100 ft. Kinda difficult to do
>> 2000ft if the maximum allowed VFR is 1100 ft.
>
>It is not correct that the maximum allowed VFR is 1100 ft.
>
>
>
>I've flown over the East River VFR before at 2000 (or perhaps a little
>higher). It just involves talking to one of the nice controllers at LGA.
>
>I'm sure you - and any other pilot - know this; you were just being a
>little lazy with your terminology. But who knows: some reporter might
>read this thread someday.
>
>I'd hate for us to be responsible for more misinformation. That would
>make us no better than many politicians.
>
> - Andrew


Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
See my online aerial photo album at
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
> Safety should not be regulated. If you can't fly your friggin' airplane
> without augering into the side of an apartment building, you shouldn't be
> flying your airplane around apartment buildings.

The problem here is not someone flying their aircraft *around* apartment
buildings but rather *into*... <sick-grin>

Odd are, the pilot just screwed up in his thinking of what sort of bank
angle might be necessary... Personally, I would have thrown my plane over
on it's side in a 60+ degree bank and had no problem with it... Hell, it
lets you see the ground better when it's straight out your side window
anyway...

It all boils down to the Law of Gross Tonnage... Buildings win over
aircraft.. Hell, the best we can hope for is a draw (i.e. the building also
gets destroyed like with the WTC towers)... With our small aircraft, it's
not like we're going to do much damage to a building, but it's a pretty good
chance that there won't be much left of our aircrafts afterwards... Oh well,
Darwin will protect us, right?