NY VFR corridor TFR - how does this help?

[Bob Noel]

So now fixed-wing aircraft must be "UNLESS AUTHORIZED AND BEING CONTROLLED
BY ATC" in that particular corridor.

This helps how?

Does anyone know which radar(s) has coverage of the area? If it is a typical
terminal radar, then ATC will be dealing with returns that are, on average,
at least 3.5 seconds old. How is ATC going to prevent anyone from getting into
a situation where they can't out turn or out climb obstacles?

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

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>So now fixed-wing aircraft must be "UNLESS AUTHORIZED AND BEING CONTROLLED
>BY ATC" in that particular corridor.
>
>This helps how?
>


If it calms the anti-GA rhetoric, IT HELPS.

If it forces a few people to talk to ATC who didn't want to, well what would be
a sound, responsible justification for wanting to fly through the middle of NYC
at 1000ft WITHOUT talking to anyone?

Are we being a bit spoilt here?

GF

[Gary Drescher]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> So now fixed-wing aircraft must be "UNLESS AUTHORIZED AND BEING CONTROLLED
> BY ATC" in that particular corridor.
>
> This helps how?
>
> Does anyone know which radar(s) has coverage of the area? If it is a
> typical
> terminal radar, then ATC will be dealing with returns that are, on
> average,
> at least 3.5 seconds old. How is ATC going to prevent anyone from getting
> into
> a situation where they can't out turn or out climb obstacles?

I believe the idea is that ATC won't clear you into the East River unless
they can clear you to continue into LGA's Class B. That way you never have
to make the U-turn.

So this regulation does indeed address the problem.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> If it forces a few people to talk to ATC who didn't want to, well what
> would be
> a sound, responsible justification for wanting to fly through the middle
> of NYC
> at 1000ft WITHOUT talking to anyone?

There's certainly a good reason not to talk to ATC: if you're below their
radar coverage, you might prefer be on the common traffic frequency (there's
one for the Hudson and one for the East River) so you can announce your
position and hear other pilots' announcements.

--Gary

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Noel writes:

> So now fixed-wing aircraft must be "UNLESS AUTHORIZED AND BEING CONTROLLED
> BY ATC" in that particular corridor.
>
> This helps how?

It doesn't.

> Does anyone know which radar(s) has coverage of the area? If it is a typical
> terminal radar, then ATC will be dealing with returns that are, on average,
> at least 3.5 seconds old. How is ATC going to prevent anyone from getting into
> a situation where they can't out turn or out climb obstacles?

It isn't.

This is just a political move.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Greg Farris writes:

> If it calms the anti-GA rhetoric, IT HELPS.

What if another accident occurs?

> If it forces a few people to talk to ATC who didn't want to, well what would be
> a sound, responsible justification for wanting to fly through the middle of NYC
> at 1000ft WITHOUT talking to anyone?

I don't think it's a bad idea to be in contact with ATC; in fact, I'm
surprised that anyone would want to fly through such a crowded area
without talking to anyone. But requiring ATC contact won't prevent
this type of accident.

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

[me[_1_]]

Gary

I agree with your view and also agree that it is not overly restrictive..

>
> I believe the idea is that ATC won't clear you into the East River unless
> they can clear you to continue into LGA's Class B. That way you never have
> to make the U-turn.
>
> So this regulation does indeed address the problem.
>
> --Gary
>

[Joe Johnson]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..

> There's certainly a good reason not to talk to ATC: if you're below their
> radar coverage, you might prefer be on the common traffic frequency
(there's
> one for the Hudson and one for the East River) so you can announce your
> position and hear other pilots' announcements.
>
> --Gary
>
Hi Gary. I completely agree with this. It's only in class B that the
controllers have the obligation to separate all air traffice, VFR as well as
IFR. If I'm in the class E, I'd rather be talking to the other traffic so I
know their intentions.

Beyond that, I feel compelled to say that throughout this sorry episode,
your posts have have had the best, no-nonsense information and insights, and
I thank you for that.

[Gary Drescher]

"Joe Johnson" > wrote in message
m...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> There's certainly a good reason not to talk to ATC: if you're below their
>> radar coverage, you might prefer be on the common traffic frequency
>> (there's one for the Hudson and one for the East River) so you can
>> announce your position and hear other pilots' announcements.
>
> Hi Gary. I completely agree with this. It's only in class B that the
> controllers have the obligation to separate all air traffice, VFR as well
> as
> IFR. If I'm in the class E, I'd rather be talking to the other traffic so
> I
> know their intentions.
>
> Beyond that, I feel compelled to say that throughout this sorry episode,
> your posts have have had the best, no-nonsense information and insights,
> and
> I thank you for that.

Thanks!

--Gary

[Guy Elden Jr]

Gary Drescher wrote:
> I believe the idea is that ATC won't clear you into the East River unless
> they can clear you to continue into LGA's Class B. That way you never have
> to make the U-turn.

I suppose this could work as long as arrivals are using runway 31, or
departures are using 13. Since this is just a NOTAM for now, and the
NOTAM doesn't say anything about changing the boundaries of the Class B
airspace, is it possible for a plane flying the East River corridor at
1000 feet (outside of the B airspace), who is talking to LGA tower, to
be allowed to continue north of the approach path, even if there is
conflicting traffic arriving or departing? Technically it isn't
positive control airspace, so the only separation services ATC is
required to give is IFR - IFR. VFR still has the see and avoid mandate.

I personally won't bother flying the East River corridor as I think
it's too tight for comfort. I did have a nice flight down the river at
8,000 feet a few years ago however. That is also outside of the Class
B, but I called up NY Approach anyway and was handled very
efficiently... flew south to about Governor's Island, then descended
through the Class B as I turned around north to fly up the Hudson. As I
got lower, I was cleared to the west direct to Caldwell to land. Only
instructions ATC really ever gave me was caution for the Boeing 7x7
departing LGA/EWR. Other than that, it was a piece of cake.

--
Guy

[Mxsmanic]

Is there a map somewhere that shows the actual VFR corridor? I don't
know the area very well so it's hard to figure out what people are
talking about.

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

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> The NY VFR Terminal Area Chart.

Is there a PDF of it that I can download somewhere (doesn't have to be
up to date, obviously)?

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

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> If you send me a postal address @ balsapilot at yahoo dot com, I'll
> mail you an expired copy.

I wouldn't want to put you or anyone to that much trouble. I was just
hoping maybe I could find something on the Web. I want to try to fly
it but I don't know exactly where this Terrible Turn is supposed to
take place.

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

[John Clear]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:
>B A R R Y writes:
>
>> The NY VFR Terminal Area Chart.
>
>Is there a PDF of it that I can download somewhere (doesn't have to be
>up to date, obviously)?

Not PDF, but it is available here:

http://aviationtoolbox.org/raw_data/FAA/sectionals/current/Terminal-Area-Charts/New%20York%20TAC%2069.tif

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Greg Farris >
wrote:

> >So now fixed-wing aircraft must be "UNLESS AUTHORIZED AND BEING CONTROLLED
> >BY ATC" in that particular corridor.
> >
> >This helps how?
>
> If it calms the anti-GA rhetoric, IT HELPS.

If it fuels the ignorance of politicians, the media, and the general public,
then it does NOT help. Serioulsy, does it help people understand that
ATC isn't some all-knowing, all-powerful thing that can prevent every
accident if us dumb pilots were being controlled?

> If it forces a few people to talk to ATC who didn't want to, well what would
> be
> a sound, responsible justification for wanting to fly through the middle of
> NYC
> at 1000ft WITHOUT talking to anyone?

I would think that the answer to your question lies in the purpose of
having a VFR corridor there in the first place.


>
> Are we being a bit spoilt here?

No. For me, I've never flown the VFR corridor and probably never will.
But I'm not going to cop the attitude of "it doesn't effect me, so I don't care"
(I'm not saying that you are doing that). A sore spot with me is imposing
rules that don't directly address the need/desire and have adverse side effects.

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

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Gary Drescher" > wrote:

> > So now fixed-wing aircraft must be "UNLESS AUTHORIZED AND BEING CONTROLLED
> > BY ATC" in that particular corridor.
> >
> > This helps how?
> >
> > Does anyone know which radar(s) has coverage of the area? If it is a
> > typical
> > terminal radar, then ATC will be dealing with returns that are, on
> > average,
> > at least 3.5 seconds old. How is ATC going to prevent anyone from getting
> > into
> > a situation where they can't out turn or out climb obstacles?
>
> I believe the idea is that ATC won't clear you into the East River unless
> they can clear you to continue into LGA's Class B. That way you never have
> to make the U-turn.
>
> So this regulation does indeed address the problem.

Maybe.

All airplanes would be cleared into Class B or *could* be cleared?

Would some airplanes still make the U-turn?

Who decides if someone should or shouldn't even start to make the turn?
Is ATC going to be given the authority and responsibility of determining
which aircraft can make the U-turn?

Is the VFR corridor going to be a one-corridor?

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

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
>> If it forces a few people to talk to ATC who didn't want to, well what
>> would be
>> a sound, responsible justification for wanting to fly through the middle
>> of NYC
>> at 1000ft WITHOUT talking to anyone?
>
>There's certainly a good reason not to talk to ATC: if you're below their
>radar coverage, you might prefer be on the common traffic frequency (there's
>one for the Hudson and one for the East River) so you can announce your
>position and hear other pilots' announcements.
>


CTAF with upwards of ten targets within 2nm?
Why am I not buying this?

GF

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> Does anyone know which radar(s) has coverage of the area? If it is a
typical
> terminal radar, then ATC will be dealing with returns that are, on
average,
> at least 3.5 seconds old. How is ATC going to prevent anyone from getting
into
> a situation where they can't out turn or out climb obstacles?

ATC: "Cessna xxx, were you aware that you just ran into a building?"