The East River VFR corridor is now history

[Peter R.]

FAA just announced effective immediately, the East River corridor will be
closed to fixed wing aircraft:

http://tinyurl.com/yg9lc5

Not the best shots, but here are a couple of pictures from that side of
Manhattan taken during my one and only flight up the East River back in
January 2004:

http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00754avc5.jpg
http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00755and8.jpg

And a couple from the west side, in case this is the next one to fall:

http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?image=theladyhr7.jpg
http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pa280075alm6.jpg


--
Peter

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> FAA just announced effective immediately, the East River corridor will be
> closed to fixed wing aircraft:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yg9lc5

Even that article clearly explains in the first paragraph that the corridor
is NOT closed to fixed-wind aircraft. If one reads the actual NOTAM, one
will see that amphibious fixed-wing aircraft operating at the seaplane based
are also permitted (why amphibious and not any seaplane, I don't know), even
without ATC approval.

[Marco Leon]

This is not a bad deal in my opinion. If we really wanted to go up the
East River, we just need to contact ATC. Being in the heart of the
busiest Class B in the world, pilots should be comfortable with ATC if
they are there anyhow. This has many positives:

1) Using the words like "banned" unless under ATC "control" should
appease the aviation-challenged pols and public while they think this
is more restrictive than it actually is.
2) It shuts the demagogues up (i.e. Schumer)
3) Most importantly, they think they "won"
4) It allows ATC to "coach" pilots that may be unfamiliar (like Lidle)
if they seem confused. Remember that guy in the Mooney that flew over
LGA then down the East River a couple years back?

I know some if you will flame me saying that giving in to anything
means that we "lost" but sometimes in life you need to give an inch to
keep a foot. I was really afraid that they might have closed the entire
Hudson Corridor permanently. Soon after 9/11 I'd bet many of us had
thought it was inevitable. It's been 50 years since there was an
accident like this so hopefully it'll be another 50 before they revisit
this issue again.

Marco

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> Even that article clearly explains in the first paragraph that the corridor
> is NOT closed to fixed-wind aircraft. If one reads the actual NOTAM, one
> will see that amphibious fixed-wing aircraft operating at the seaplane based
> are also permitted (why amphibious and not any seaplane, I don't know), even
> without ATC approval.

[Kingfish]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> Even that article clearly explains in the first paragraph that the corridor
> is NOT closed to fixed-wind aircraft. If one reads the actual NOTAM, one
> will see that amphibious fixed-wing aircraft operating at the seaplane based
> are also permitted (why amphibious and not any seaplane, I don't know), even
> without ATC approval.

An odd exclusion, seeing as we always had to contact LaGuardia tower
when inbound from Easthampton into the 23St seaplane base. The Throg's
Neck routing had us overfly LGA's tower at 1000ft and then a direct
turn to the power company building (Big Alice) then switch to river
frequency and announce the descent & landing. It's unimaginable that
you would even attempt to do this without ATC contact - even before the
accident.

[PPL-A (Canada)]

Peter R. wrote:
> FAA just announced effective immediately, the East River corridor will be
> closed to fixed wing aircraft:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yg9lc5
>
> Not the best shots, but here are a couple of pictures from that side of
> Manhattan taken during my one and only flight up the East River back in
> January 2004:
>
> http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00754avc5.jpg
> http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00755and8.jpg
>
> And a couple from the west side, in case this is the next one to fall:
>
> http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?image=theladyhr7.jpg
> http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pa280075alm6.jpg
>
>
> --
> Peter

Forgive me for not being aware of this, but I fly up in Canada, and in
our CARs (602.14 and 602.15), Canadian regs. very specifically prohibit

the operation of a fixedwing A/C over a built up area at less than 1000

feet above the highest obstacle within 2000 feet horizontally of the
A/C. The exception to this rule is if the A/C is conducting a
take-off, an approach, or landing.

As I have noticed in the discussion of the unforunate death of Cory
Lidle, the East River VFR corridor is about 2000 feet wide in many
places, yet fixed wing A/C are regularly flown there at altitudes as
low as 400 feet AGL, with many buildings along the shore-line up to
several hundred feet tall.

Considering that the ideal flight paths of A/C up and down this VFR
corridor are within a few hundred feet of the shoreline, this type of
flying would not be permitted in Canada.

What's the FAA regs. on the matter? Is there some exception in place
for New York's VFR corridors?

PPL-A (Canada)

[Mikey]

Kingfish wrote:
> Peter Duniho wrote:
> > Even that article clearly explains in the first paragraph that the corridor
> > is NOT closed to fixed-wind aircraft. If one reads the actual NOTAM, one
> > will see that amphibious fixed-wing aircraft operating at the seaplane based
> > are also permitted (why amphibious and not any seaplane, I don't know), even
> > without ATC approval.
>
> An odd exclusion, seeing as we always had to contact LaGuardia tower
> when inbound from Easthampton into the 23St seaplane base. The Throg's
> Neck routing had us overfly LGA's tower at 1000ft and then a direct
> turn to the power company building (Big Alice) then switch to river
> frequency and announce the descent & landing. It's unimaginable that
> you would even attempt to do this without ATC contact - even before the
> accident.

I had been considering sending an e-mail to Representative Weiner
suggesting that it would not be difficult for LGA tower to control the
East River corridor from the Brooklyn Bridge upstream to the north end
of Welfare Island, thus (at least somewhat) assuaging his fears about
the "Wild West" situation in the corridor.

It is now questionable whether he (and Schumer, and an inexhaustible
supply of Democratic politicians) will be able to resist the temptation
to demagogue this issue ad infinitum.

Certainly Ritchie-the-idiot-son-of-a-crook-Daley is absolutely chewing
the carpet in Chicago (the guy must have washed out of a pilot training
program in his teens; how else can one explain his psychotic hatred for
General Aviation?)

And, by the way, the proper nickname for the 1000 megawatt electric
generator in Long Island City is "Big Allis", as it was built for LILCO
by Allis-Chalmers shortly before they exited the utility
turbine-generator business.

I remember that "Big Alice" was married to Ralph Kramden . . .

w80user
KEVV
M20C

[Peter R.]

Peter Duniho > wrote:

> Even that article clearly explains in the first paragraph that the corridor
> is NOT closed to fixed-wind aircraft.

The first paragraph of the article:

"Fixed-wing planes have been banned from the East River corridor in New
York unless the pilot is in contact with air traffic control,"

My understanding of a VFR corridor is that one need NOT talk to ATC.
Requiring aircraft to be in contact with ATC when overflying the East River
*and* not permitting flight below 1,100 feet is, in my interpretation, the
end of the corridor, with the exception of those aircraft based at the
seaplane bases on the river.

--
Peter

[Robert M. Gary]

Where do you get that its closed? I don't see anything about it being
closed.

-Robert


Peter R. wrote:
> FAA just announced effective immediately, the East River corridor will be
> closed to fixed wing aircraft:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yg9lc5
>
> Not the best shots, but here are a couple of pictures from that side of
> Manhattan taken during my one and only flight up the East River back in
> January 2004:
>
> http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00754avc5.jpg
> http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00755and8.jpg
>
> And a couple from the west side, in case this is the next one to fall:
>
> http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?image=theladyhr7.jpg
> http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pa280075alm6.jpg
>
>
> --
> Peter

[Peter R.]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> Where do you get that its closed? I don't see anything about it being
> closed.

Aircraft, with the exception of those based there and helicopters are now
not permitted below 1,100 feet.

As you may recall, the corridor was 1,100 feet *and* below. For
additional explanation as to my interpretation, see my reply to Peter D.'s
post.


--
Peter

[Emily]

Peter R. wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>> Where do you get that its closed? I don't see anything about it being
>> closed.
>
> Aircraft, with the exception of those based there and helicopters are now
> not permitted below 1,100 feet.

Granted I don't have a chart of the area, but is not allowing traffic
below 1100 ft such a bad thing? It seems, based on your next sentence,
that it eliminates the VFR corridor, but is that really a problem? Is
ATC that reluctant to clear aircraft through?

[Peter R.]

Emily > wrote:

> Granted I don't have a chart of the area, but is not allowing traffic
> below 1100 ft such a bad thing?

I wasn't necessarily critiquing the action, just pointing out that, based
on my interpretation, the corridor is technically no longer there.

> It seems, based on your next sentence,
> that it eliminates the VFR corridor, but is that really a problem?
> Is ATC that reluctant to clear aircraft through?

Honestly, I don't know, as I have never talked to LaGuardia tower but being
the busy airport that it is, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if they are
less than 100% accommodating.

It will make listening to the LGA tower ATC feed over at LiveATC.net even
more interesting, however. :)

http://audio.liveatc.net:8012/klga.m3u


--
Peter

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> The first paragraph of the article:
>
> "Fixed-wing planes have been banned from the East River corridor in New
> York unless the pilot is in contact with air traffic control,"

You quoted the part that disputes your post.

No aircraft are permitted in Class B, C, or D airspace unless they are in
contact with ATC. That doesn't mean that those airspace are closed to
aircraft. Likewise, a radio communication requirement for the corridor in
no way constitutes closure to fixed-wing aircraft.

> My understanding of a VFR corridor is that one need NOT talk to ATC.

Normally, this would be the case. So? This is an exception to the general
rule.

> Requiring aircraft to be in contact with ATC when overflying the East
> River
> *and* not permitting flight below 1,100 feet is, in my interpretation, the
> end of the corridor, with the exception of those aircraft based at the
> seaplane bases on the river.

I don't see how. The NOTAM specifically allows flight within the corridor
as long as they are authorized and under positive control by ATC.

Pete

[Mike Isaksen]

"Mikey" > wrote in message ...
> from the Brooklyn Bridge upstream to the north end
> of Welfare Island, ...

Wow, now there's a reference I haven't heard anyone else use in a long time.
I still use it sometimes for effect. It always brings a knowing smile to a
few.

[EridanMan]

By This logic, the SFO Bayshore Freeway Transition (which runs directly
over my house) has been closed for... 40 years now?... hmm... that's
funny, I'd swear I saw a seemingly endless parade of light singles
streaming over my house at 1200 feet today... It's a shame they're not
still getting the same great view up there anymore;)

All puerile sarcasm aside... I do have to agree that having such a tiny
little sliver of uncontrolled VFR boxed in like that was just inviting
people to take un-necessary risks... especially if the local center was
less willing to grant a class Bravo Transition to light singles because
'they had their space below' (I have _NO_ idea if this was actually the
case... but I can understand how an out of town pilot might be given
that impression).


Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Where do you get that its closed? I don't see anything about it being
> closed.
>
> -Robert
>
>
> Peter R. wrote:
> > FAA just announced effective immediately, the East River corridor will be
> > closed to fixed wing aircraft:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/yg9lc5
> >
> > Not the best shots, but here are a couple of pictures from that side of
> > Manhattan taken during my one and only flight up the East River back in
> > January 2004:
> >
> > http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00754avc5.jpg
> > http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00755and8.jpg
> >
> > And a couple from the west side, in case this is the next one to fall:
> >
> > http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?image=theladyhr7.jpg
> > http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pa280075alm6.jpg
> >
> >
> > --
> > Peter

[Gary Drescher]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>> Where do you get that its closed? I don't see anything about it being
>> closed.
>
> Aircraft, with the exception of those based there and helicopters are now
> not permitted below 1,100 feet.

That's false. They're permitted; they just have to be under ATC control. I
posted the TFR yesterday; here it is again:

!FDC 6/3495 ZNY EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, VFR
FLIGHT OPERATIONS INVOLVING FIXED WING AIRCRAFT (EXCLUDING AMPHIBIOUS
FIXED WING AIRCRAFT LANDING OR DEPARTING NEW YORK SKYPORTS INC
SEAPLANE BASE) IN THE EAST RIVER CLASS B EXCLUSION AREA EXTENDING
FROM THE SOUTHWESTERN TIP OF GOVERNORS ISLAND TO THE NORTH TIP OF
ROOSEVELT ISLAND, ARE PROHIBITED UNLESS AUTHORIZED AND BEING
CONTROLLED BY ATC. TO OBTAIN AUTHORIZATION CONTACT LGA ATCT SOUTH OF
GOVERNORS ISLAND ON 126.05.

See: "unless authorized and being controlled by ATC. To obtain
authorization, ..."

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"PPL-A (Canada)" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Forgive me for not being aware of this, but I fly up in Canada, and in
> our CARs (602.14 and 602.15), Canadian regs. very specifically prohibit
>
> the operation of a fixedwing A/C over a built up area at less than 1000
>
> feet above the highest obstacle within 2000 feet horizontally of the
> A/C. The exception to this rule is if the A/C is conducting a
> take-off, an approach, or landing.
>
> What's the FAA regs. on the matter? Is there some exception in place
> for New York's VFR corridors?

Same answer as yesterday. :)

--Gary

[Peter R.]

Peter Duniho > wrote:

> I don't see how. The NOTAM specifically allows flight within the corridor
> as long as they are authorized and under positive control by ATC.

Apparently I am discussing semantics. The corridor used to be 1100 feet
and below, and no flight (exceptions notwithstanding) is now authorized
below 1,100 feet. Additionally, the freedom of flying over the East River
(up to the northern tip of Roosevelt Island) without obtaining a clearance
is no longer permitted.

Those are my two points in support of my interpretation that the
"corridor," as it used to be known, is now closed.




--
Peter

[Peter R.]

Gary Drescher > wrote:

> That's false. They're permitted; they just have to be under ATC control. I
> posted the TFR yesterday; here it is again:

Sheesh, I am sorry. There is no altitude limit in the TFR. I made the
mistake of believing the CNN article.

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

"Peter R." > wrote:

> Apparently I am discussing semantics.

Peter, I am mistaken. I assumed the CNN article about this restriction
was correct and believed the lower limit of 1,100 was stated in the TFR,
until I just read it.


--
Peter

[Gary Drescher]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Gary Drescher > wrote:
>
>> That's false. They're permitted; they just have to be under ATC control.
>> I
>> posted the TFR yesterday; here it is again:
>
> Sheesh, I am sorry. There is no altitude limit in the TFR. I made the
> mistake of believing the CNN article.

The CNN article was correct, although its statement about altitude was
confusingly phrased. Apparently they were referring to the longstanding fact
that the Class E corridor has a ceiling of 1100'.

--Gary

[Ron Natalie]

Gary Drescher wrote:

>
> !FDC 6/3495 ZNY EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, VFR
> FLIGHT OPERATIONS INVOLVING FIXED WING AIRCRAFT (EXCLUDING AMPHIBIOUS
> FIXED WING AIRCRAFT LANDING OR DEPARTING NEW YORK SKYPORTS INC
> SEAPLANE BASE)

Umm...what about true seaplanes. I guess since they aren't
amphibious, they don't get the exception?

[Joe Johnson]

"EridanMan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> All puerile sarcasm aside... I do have to agree that having such a tiny
> little sliver of uncontrolled VFR boxed in like that was just inviting
> people to take un-necessary risks... especially if the local center was
> less willing to grant a class Bravo Transition to light singles because
> 'they had their space below' (I have _NO_ idea if this was actually the
> case... but I can understand how an out of town pilot might be given
> that impression).
>
It's not the case at all. I've gone up the East River multiple times, both
in the VFR corridor and communicating with LGA ATCT. The LGA controllers
have always been very helpful and professional, calling out helicopter and
other traffic as I traversed the area, asking if I wanted a handoff or
wanted to exit the Class B, etc. The only time they denied my request to be
cleared into the Class B was when traffic was landing on runway 4, and they
were actually using that part of the class B for bigger iron than my C-172.

[PPL-A (Canada)]

Gary Drescher wrote:
> "PPL-A (Canada)" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> > Forgive me for not being aware of this, but I fly up in Canada, and in
> > our CARs (602.14 and 602.15), Canadian regs. very specifically prohibit
> >
> > the operation of a fixedwing A/C over a built up area at less than 1000
> >
> > feet above the highest obstacle within 2000 feet horizontally of the
> > A/C. The exception to this rule is if the A/C is conducting a
> > take-off, an approach, or landing.
> >
> > What's the FAA regs. on the matter? Is there some exception in place
> > for New York's VFR corridors?
>
> Same answer as yesterday. :)
>
> --Gary

Sorry Gary:

But you didnt't really answer my question ... what are the regulations
(the FAR #s)? I'm curious and would like to read them (on-line if
possible) to get an understnding of the subtle differences. Also ...
is there a source on-line to read the NOTAM, or whatever, that allows
the exception to the regulation in the corridor. I'd like to read the
wording of that too.

Thanks very much,

PPL-A (Canada)

[Gary Drescher]

"PPL-A (Canada)" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> what are the regulations
> (the FAR #s)? I'm curious and would like to read them (on-line if
> possible) to get an understnding of the subtle differences. Also ...
> is there a source on-line to read the NOTAM, or whatever, that allows
> the exception to the regulation in the corridor. I'd like to read the
> wording of that too.

No problem. FARS:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl
(see 91.119).

TFR NOTAM: See yesterday's thread "AS/MEL now need ATC permission over East
River".

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"PPL-A (Canada)" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Also ...
> is there a source on-line to read the NOTAM, or whatever, that allows
> the exception to the regulation in the corridor. I'd like to read the
> wording of that too.

Oops, I neglected the online pointer you requested. You can see older NOTAMs
here: http://www.faa.gov/NTAP/ .

For the latest ones, I use DUATS, but you need an account for that.

--Gary

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Peter, I am mistaken. I assumed the CNN article about this restriction
> was correct and believed the lower limit of 1,100 was stated in the TFR,
> until I just read it.

Okay...thanks. I couldn't figure out where you were getting the 1100' thing
from, since it wasn't in the NOTAM. I see where the confusion came from
now...guess we can't trust CNN to do our preflight research for us, eh? :)

(For what it's worth, the language in the CNN article didn't even seem to
clearly mean flight below 1100' was prohibited. One could just as easily
have interpreted the phrase to mean flight was *only* allowed below 1100',
just to confuse things further :) ).

[RK Henry]

On 13 Oct 2006 19:45:01 -0700, "Marco Leon" > wrote:

>I know some if you will flame me saying that giving in to anything
>means that we "lost" but sometimes in life you need to give an inch to
>keep a foot.

What has been lost is another "inch" given away to the demagogues.
We've lost so many "inches" over the years. Now the FAA has shown that
it can be cowed into doing something by media and political pressure
where they usually have been able to resist such pressure. Buoyed by
that success, how many other groups are going to bring pressure to
bear? There are so many kook groups demanding so many concessions, up
to and including a complete ban on all general aviation activities. We
can't afford to give an inch on any front.

RK Henry

[Peter R.]

Peter Duniho > wrote:

> (For what it's worth, the language in the CNN article didn't even seem to
> clearly mean flight below 1100' was prohibited. One could just as easily
> have interpreted the phrase to mean flight was *only* allowed below 1100',
> just to confuse things further :) ).

I am guilty of skimming articles in this newsgroup often, rather than
slowing down and fully comprehending them.

--
Peter

[[email protected]]

As I read the new reg, I think all it means is that the "end" of the
VFR box canyon above the East river has been moved from the northern
end of Roosevelt island to the southern end of the island. That is all
I read. You can still fly up the East river to that point without
calling ATC, which is not as far as before. Now you can go as far as
the UN building before making the big 180 back out.

Bud

PPL-A (Canada) wrote:
> Gary Drescher wrote:
> > "PPL-A (Canada)" > wrote in message
> > ps.com...
> > > Forgive me for not being aware of this, but I fly up in Canada, and in
> > > our CARs (602.14 and 602.15), Canadian regs. very specifically prohibit
> > >
> > > the operation of a fixedwing A/C over a built up area at less than 1000
> > >
> > > feet above the highest obstacle within 2000 feet horizontally of the
> > > A/C. The exception to this rule is if the A/C is conducting a
> > > take-off, an approach, or landing.
> > >
> > > What's the FAA regs. on the matter? Is there some exception in place
> > > for New York's VFR corridors?
> >
> > Same answer as yesterday. :)
> >
> > --Gary
>
> Sorry Gary:
>
> But you didnt't really answer my question ... what are the regulations
> (the FAR #s)? I'm curious and would like to read them (on-line if
> possible) to get an understnding of the subtle differences. Also ...
> is there a source on-line to read the NOTAM, or whatever, that allows
> the exception to the regulation in the corridor. I'd like to read the
> wording of that too.
>
> Thanks very much,
>
> PPL-A (Canada)

[Gary Drescher]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> As I read the new reg, I think all it means is that the "end" of the
> VFR box canyon above the East river has been moved from the northern
> end of Roosevelt island to the southern end of the island. That is all
> I read. You can still fly up the East river to that point without
> calling ATC, which is not as far as before. Now you can go as far as
> the UN building before making the big 180 back out.

No, because the end is moved to the southern end of a *different* island,
well south of the UN.

--Gary

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:45:01 -0700, Marco Leon wrote:

> This is not a bad deal in my opinion. If we really wanted to go up the
> East River, we just need to contact ATC. Being in the heart of the busiest
> Class B in the world, pilots should be comfortable with ATC if they are
> there anyhow.

However, you've now a region of airspace where one set of pilots will be
on the self-announce and another on the LGA frequency. That sounds like
an especially bad idea.

Unless they plan to never clear in fixed wings to the otherwise-exclusion
zone.

- Andrew

[Cubdriver]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:08:27 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>Even that article clearly explains in the first paragraph that the corridor
>is NOT closed to fixed-wind aircraft. If one reads the actual NOTAM, one
>will see that amphibious fixed-wing aircraft operating at the seaplane based
>are also permitted (why amphibious and not any seaplane, I don't know), even
>without ATC approval.

A relative in high places, perhaps?

[EridanMan]

> It's not the case at all.

That's really good to hear... As I said, based on the (probably
undeserved) reputation of NYC ATC, I can see why an out-of-towner might
be leery of 'getting in the way'... its good to hear that those
impressions are unfounded.

-Scott

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"RK Henry" > wrote in message
...
> What has been lost is another "inch" given away to the demagogues.
> We've lost so many "inches" over the years. Now the FAA has shown that
> it can be cowed into doing something by media and political pressure
> where they usually have been able to resist such pressure. Buoyed by
> that success, how many other groups are going to bring pressure to
> bear? There are so many kook groups demanding so many concessions, up
> to and including a complete ban on all general aviation activities. We
> can't afford to give an inch on any front.

Gun owners have learned that over the years... We started off with ONE law
and it stated SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED... Look at the cluster-**** of laws
that we have now, slowly eroding our 2nd-Amendment rights... Of course, all
of them are unconstitutional in my opinion...

You have to take a stand and fight every change, otherwise you'll lose all
your rights... Our rights as aviators have been slowly eroded ever since
Kitty Hawk... The Wright brothers didn't need no stinkin' license to fly...
They didn't need PMAed parts... They didn't need no ****in' medical...

[LWG]

I have to agree. Twenty-thousand gun laws amounting to a virtual ban on
carrying, and sometimes even ownership (i.e. the District of Columbia's law
is very simple, "You can't have a gun unless you're a cop or Carl Rowan."
(It's amazing what you can get away with if you know the right people.)) We
have the DC ADIZ, a "temporary" thing that the FAA was by law required to
justify to Congress --what, two years ago? You know that Daley is gonna do
something Chicago some day soon. It won't stop until there is a ban on
private flying "to protect 1) the environment, 2) the children, 3) women, or
4) an endangered fly."

> Gun owners have learned that over the years... We started off with ONE law
> and it stated SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED... Look at the cluster-**** of laws
> that we have now, slowly eroding our 2nd-Amendment rights... Of course,
> all
> of them are unconstitutional in my opinion...
>
> You have to take a stand and fight every change, otherwise you'll lose all
> your rights... Our rights as aviators have been slowly eroded ever since
> Kitty Hawk... The Wright brothers didn't need no stinkin' license to
> fly...
> They didn't need PMAed parts... They didn't need no ****in' medical...
>
>

[[email protected]]

Apparently you are right. The AOPA had a graphic on their website that
showed that the end of the canyon had been moved from the north end of
Roosevelt I. to the south end. This has since benn changed to the south
end of GOVENOR's Island.

Bud

Gary Drescher wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > As I read the new reg, I think all it means is that the "end" of the
> > VFR box canyon above the East river has been moved from the northern
> > end of Roosevelt island to the southern end of the island. That is all
> > I read. You can still fly up the East river to that point without
> > calling ATC, which is not as far as before. Now you can go as far as
> > the UN building before making the big 180 back out.
>
> No, because the end is moved to the southern end of a *different* island,
> well south of the UN.
>
> --Gary

[Gary Drescher]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Apparently you are right. The AOPA had a graphic on their website that
> showed that the end of the canyon had been moved from the north end of
> Roosevelt I. to the south end. This has since benn changed to the south
> end of GOVENOR's Island.

Yes, I emailed them last week to inform them of their error.

This is the second time I've noticed an error in AOPA's TFR graphics, by the
way. A few years ago, there was a TFR in Chicago after Meigs closed. AOPA
mistakenly omitted the central downtown area from their drawing of the TFR.
A while after I emailed them about that error, a customer-relations person
wrote back and said their chart experts still thought the drawing was
correct. I convinced the CR person to verify it for himself, whereupon he
agreed with me and eventually convinced the chart experts to change the
drawing.

Remember, we can't delegate any of our PIC responsibility to AOPA. We're
responsible for determining the scope of TFRs ourselves, rather than taking
AOPA's word for it.

--Gary

> Gary Drescher wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > As I read the new reg, I think all it means is that the "end" of the
>> > VFR box canyon above the East river has been moved from the northern
>> > end of Roosevelt island to the southern end of the island. That is all
>> > I read. You can still fly up the East river to that point without
>> > calling ATC, which is not as far as before. Now you can go as far as
>> > the UN building before making the big 180 back out.
>>
>> No, because the end is moved to the southern end of a *different* island,
>> well south of the UN.
>>
>> --Gary
>

[Gary Drescher]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Apparently you are right. The AOPA had a graphic on their website that
> showed that the end of the canyon had been moved from the north end of
> Roosevelt I. to the south end. This has since benn changed to the south
> end of GOVENOR's Island.

At the moment, AOPA's drawing of that TFR is *still* wrong. They show only
about half of the actual scope of the TFR:
http://www.aopa.org/images/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/notams/6-3495.gif .
The text of the TFR is here (I just verified with DUATS that it's still
current):
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/notams.html#ny .

Would anyone else like to email them about this? )
Perhaps if AOPA hears from enough of us, they'll change their drawing before
they lure some pilot into busting the TFR.

--Gary



> Gary Drescher wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > As I read the new reg, I think all it means is that the "end" of the
>> > VFR box canyon above the East river has been moved from the northern
>> > end of Roosevelt island to the southern end of the island. That is all
>> > I read. You can still fly up the East river to that point without
>> > calling ATC, which is not as far as before. Now you can go as far as
>> > the UN building before making the big 180 back out.
>>
>> No, because the end is moved to the southern end of a *different* island,
>> well south of the UN.
>>
>> --Gary
>

[[email protected]]

Correct here also. I always have NOAA sectionals and VFR terminal
charts with me. If they are wrong then I have something valid to blame
it on.
Also I plan to email them about it as you said.

Bud

Gary Drescher wrote:
..
>
> Remember, we can't delegate any of our PIC responsibility to AOPA. We're
> responsible for determining the scope of TFRs ourselves, rather than taking
> AOPA's word for it.
>
> --Gary
> >

[Bob Chilcoat]

I emailed AOPA some time ago about the error. I got a response yesterday
saying that they had informed the FAA about the error, who would be making
the change. Does the FAA make these graphics? The error is still there.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Apparently you are right. The AOPA had a graphic on their website that
>> showed that the end of the canyon had been moved from the north end of
>> Roosevelt I. to the south end. This has since benn changed to the south
>> end of GOVENOR's Island.
>
> At the moment, AOPA's drawing of that TFR is *still* wrong. They show only
> about half of the actual scope of the TFR:
> http://www.aopa.org/images/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/notams/6-3495.gif .
> The text of the TFR is here (I just verified with DUATS that it's still
> current):
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/notams.html#ny .
>
> Would anyone else like to email them about this? )
> Perhaps if AOPA hears from enough of us, they'll change their drawing
> before they lure some pilot into busting the TFR.
>
> --Gary
>
>
>
>> Gary Drescher wrote:
>>> > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>> > As I read the new reg, I think all it means is that the "end" of the
>>> > VFR box canyon above the East river has been moved from the northern
>>> > end of Roosevelt island to the southern end of the island. That is all
>>> > I read. You can still fly up the East river to that point without
>>> > calling ATC, which is not as far as before. Now you can go as far as
>>> > the UN building before making the big 180 back out.
>>>
>>> No, because the end is moved to the southern end of a *different*
>>> island,
>>> well south of the UN.
>>>
>>> --Gary
>>
>
>

[Gary Drescher]

"Bob Chilcoat" > wrote in message
...
> I emailed AOPA some time ago about the error. I got a response yesterday
> saying that they had informed the FAA about the error, who would be making
> the change. Does the FAA make these graphics? The error is still there.

The FAA provides graphics for selected TFRs, but not for the East River TFR
(the web page is http://tfr.faa.gov/tfr2/list.html). The East River graphic
on AOPA's site is AOPA's, not the FAA's.

It's distressing that on more than one occasion, AOPA has been careless
about its TFR graphics and has been confused or unresponsive when the error
is brought to their attention. Drawing TFRs incorrectly is much worse than
not drawing them at all.

--Gary


> --
> Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)
>
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> Apparently you are right. The AOPA had a graphic on their website that
>>> showed that the end of the canyon had been moved from the north end of
>>> Roosevelt I. to the south end. This has since benn changed to the south
>>> end of GOVENOR's Island.
>>
>> At the moment, AOPA's drawing of that TFR is *still* wrong. They show
>> only about half of the actual scope of the TFR:
>> http://www.aopa.org/images/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/notams/6-3495.gif .
>> The text of the TFR is here (I just verified with DUATS that it's still
>> current):
>> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/notams.html#ny .
>>
>> Would anyone else like to email them about this? )
>> Perhaps if AOPA hears from enough of us, they'll change their drawing
>> before they lure some pilot into busting the TFR.
>>
>> --Gary
>>
>>
>>
>>> Gary Drescher wrote:
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> oups.com...
>>>> > As I read the new reg, I think all it means is that the "end" of the
>>>> > VFR box canyon above the East river has been moved from the northern
>>>> > end of Roosevelt island to the southern end of the island. That is
>>>> > all
>>>> > I read. You can still fly up the East river to that point without
>>>> > calling ATC, which is not as far as before. Now you can go as far as
>>>> > the UN building before making the big 180 back out.
>>>>
>>>> No, because the end is moved to the southern end of a *different*
>>>> island,
>>>> well south of the UN.
>>>>
>>>> --Gary
>>>
>>
>>
>
>