We need to choose are battles carefully...

[me[_1_]]

I operate in the NY, Long Island area and the new East river rules do not
bother me a bit and I think they deal with a difficult situation very well.

For those of you not in the NY area let me tell you.. This issue is giant
and being blown way out of control, all against small planes and pilots..
Newsday one of the local newspapers for this area had about 10 plus pages of
coverage on Friday and almost as much on Thursday.

This change to the airspace is nothing more than adding the requirement to
communicate with ATC when operating in this part of the class B exclusion.
It looks like it exempts most operations in the exclusion that really need
to be there. Sightseeing flight don't need to be there, the Hudson river
route give you plenty to see.

Please let's stick together and take this small requirement as one of the
results of this unfortunate accident.

If this quiets all the calls by media and politicians to completely ban
small planes then this is a small price to pay.

Thank you...

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"me" > wrote in message ...
>
> I operate in the NY, Long Island area and the new East river rules do not
> bother me a bit and I think they deal with a difficult situation very
> well.
>
> For those of you not in the NY area let me tell you.. This issue is giant
> and being blown way out of control, all against small planes and pilots..
> Newsday one of the local newspapers for this area had about 10 plus pages
> of coverage on Friday and almost as much on Thursday.
>
> This change to the airspace is nothing more than adding the requirement to
> communicate with ATC when operating in this part of the class B exclusion.
> It looks like it exempts most operations in the exclusion that really need
> to be there. Sightseeing flight don't need to be there, the Hudson river
> route give you plenty to see.
>

I'm not in the NY area, I'm not familiar with the corridor. What is the
purpose of the new requirement to communicate with ATC when operating in
that part of the Class B exclusion?

[me[_1_]]

Think of that part of the airspace as a dead end canyon. The canyon is made
up by the class B airspace
in the form of a rectangular cut out. In the past you could fly up into the
cut out but when you get to the dead end you had to do something. Either
make the very tight U turn staying in the tight canyon or if you wanted to
keep going you needed to contact ATC for clearance into LaGuardia airspace
all this needed to be done in a very short period of time when you are
already occupied with many other tasks like watching for heavy traffic and
staying inside the exclusion. In 25 years of flying in this airspace I have
never once had the need nor felt desire to go up the East river exclusion
without already being in contact with ATC.
The reason it is there is to let the helicopters and seaplanes operate in
this small cut out without the need to contact ATC unless they wanted to. I
hope this helps get a picture of this..


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "me" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> I operate in the NY, Long Island area and the new East river rules do not
>> bother me a bit and I think they deal with a difficult situation very
>> well.
>>
>> For those of you not in the NY area let me tell you.. This issue is
>> giant and being blown way out of control, all against small planes and
>> pilots.. Newsday one of the local newspapers for this area had about 10
>> plus pages of coverage on Friday and almost as much on Thursday.
>>
>> This change to the airspace is nothing more than adding the requirement
>> to communicate with ATC when operating in this part of the class B
>> exclusion. It looks like it exempts most operations in the exclusion that
>> really need to be there. Sightseeing flight don't need to be there, the
>> Hudson river route give you plenty to see.
>>
>
> I'm not in the NY area, I'm not familiar with the corridor. What is the
> purpose of the new requirement to communicate with ATC when operating in
> that part of the Class B exclusion?
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"me" > wrote in message ...
>
> Think of that part of the airspace as a dead end canyon. The canyon is
> made up by the class B airspace
> in the form of a rectangular cut out. In the past you could fly up into
> the cut out but when you get to the dead end you had to do something.
> Either make the very tight U turn staying in the tight canyon or if you
> wanted to keep going you needed to contact ATC for clearance into
> LaGuardia airspace all this needed to be done in a very short period of
> time when you are already occupied with many other tasks like watching for
> heavy traffic and staying inside the exclusion. In 25 years of flying in
> this airspace I have never once had the need nor felt desire to go up the
> East river exclusion without already being in contact with ATC.
> The reason it is there is to let the helicopters and seaplanes operate in
> this small cut out without the need to contact ATC unless they wanted to.
> I hope this helps get a picture of this..
>

That doesn't answer my question. What is the purpose of the new requirement
to communicate with ATC when operating in that part of the Class B
exclusion?

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

A practical purpose doesn't exist. It's only a feel good compromise to
settle the uninformed but very vocal critics while stopping short of closing
the VFR corridors or banning flying under Class B shelves. I am repeatedly
amazed at the ignorance of the uninformed aviation critics when it comes to
the words "controlled" and "ATC". I am equally amazed when, after forcing a
change in the name of safety, that these same people seem satisfied whether
the change actually contributes to an increase in safety or not. They
simply want their voices heard, their names in print, and their faces on
TV... it makes them feel important and that they have accomplished
something. They care little about the effectiveness or appropriateness of
the change.

[kontiki]

Jim Burns wrote:
> They
> simply want their voices heard, their names in print, and their faces on
> TV... it makes them feel important and that they have accomplished
> something. They care little about the effectiveness or appropriateness of
> the change.
>

That pretty much describes the Motis Operandi of New York politicians....
Clinton, Schumer, Rangel et.al. Heck, for that matter *most* politicians.

[Martin Hotze[_1_]]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:39:51 GMT, kontiki wrote:

>That pretty much describes the Motis Operandi of New York politicians....
>Clinton, Schumer, Rangel et.al. Heck, for that matter *most* politicians.

*ouch* 'modus operandi', please. :-)

#m
--
Arabic T-shirt sparks airport row
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5297822.stm>

I Am Not A Terrorist <http://itsnotallbad.com/iamnotaterrorist/>

[kontiki]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:39:51 GMT, kontiki wrote:
>
>
>>That pretty much describes the Motis Operandi of New York politicians....
>>Clinton, Schumer, Rangel et.al. Heck, for that matter *most* politicians.
>
>
> *ouch* 'modus operandi', please. :-)
>
> #m

Touche. I never took Latin in college. But I believe my point was well made.

[[email protected]]

Jim Burns wrote:
> the VFR corridors or banning flying under Class B shelves. I am repeatedly
> amazed at the ignorance of the uninformed aviation critics when it comes to
> the words "controlled" and "ATC".

Frankly a lot of private pilots don't fully understand the difference
between talking to ATC and ATC providing traffic advisories and ATC
providing separation services.

> I am equally amazed when, after forcing a
> change in the name of safety, that these same people seem satisfied whether
> the change actually contributes to an increase in safety or not.

Well, if the first change doesn't do anything, then they'll just ask
for more rules, regulations, and restrictions. They'll rarely admit
that their original impulse was wrong-headed. The key is to get these
people involved in their local church, library, or art museum so they
channel their I-wanna-rule-the-world urges into something innocuous.

[Marco Leon]

wrote:
>
> Frankly a lot of private pilots don't fully understand the difference
> between talking to ATC and ATC providing traffic advisories and ATC
> providing separation services.

Well, technically, you're talking to ATC both when they're providing
traffic advisories and when they're providing separation services.
Also, separation services are only for other IFR traffic so when you're
IFR, they're also giving traffic advisories on VFR traffic. But I see
how many private pilots may not realize that.

> Well, if the first change doesn't do anything, then they'll just ask
> for more rules, regulations, and restrictions. They'll rarely admit
> that their original impulse was wrong-headed. The key is to get these
> people involved in their local church, library, or art museum so they
> channel their I-wanna-rule-the-world urges into something innocuous.

Are you talking about the general public or the politician that
Konitiki mentioned? The general public don't usually convert their
anti-aviation opinions to actions unless it affects them directly (like
the ones who live around airports). The ones we need to worry about are
the demagogue politicians. I don't think getting them involved in their
local churches and libraries would work. I WISH it was that easy to
distract Schumer and the other Democrat in New York Dick, I mean Weiner
(but think he's the former).

Marco

[Dave S]

MY favorite piece of misunderstood, yet factual, information:

"A flight plan was not filed"

An aeronautical engineer that I know believed that this tidbit was
evidence of incompetence in an accident that caused the death of a close
friend of hers... (skydiver vs airplane in NY a few years back.


Jim Burns wrote:
> A practical purpose doesn't exist. It's only a feel good compromise to
> settle the uninformed but very vocal critics while stopping short of closing
> the VFR corridors or banning flying under Class B shelves. I am repeatedly
> amazed at the ignorance of the uninformed aviation critics when it comes to
> the words "controlled" and "ATC". I am equally amazed when, after forcing a
> change in the name of safety, that these same people seem satisfied whether
> the change actually contributes to an increase in safety or not. They
> simply want their voices heard, their names in print, and their faces on
> TV... it makes them feel important and that they have accomplished
> something. They care little about the effectiveness or appropriateness of
> the change.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Matt Whiting]

kontiki wrote:

> Martin Hotze wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:39:51 GMT, kontiki wrote:
>>
>>
>>> That pretty much describes the Motis Operandi of New York
>>> politicians....
>>> Clinton, Schumer, Rangel et.al. Heck, for that matter *most*
>>> politicians.
>>
>>
>>
>> *ouch* 'modus operandi', please. :-)
>>
>> #m
>
>
> Touche. I never took Latin in college. But I believe my point was well
> made.
>

Your point was understood, but certainly not made well. :-)

Matt

[Martin Hotze[_1_]]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:42:22 GMT, kontiki wrote:

>>>That pretty much describes the Motis Operandi of New York politicians....
>>>Clinton, Schumer, Rangel et.al. Heck, for that matter *most* politicians.
>>
>>
>> *ouch* 'modus operandi', please. :-)
>>
>> #m
>
>Touche.


missing the accent akut (en: the acute accent) here: touché

> I never took Latin in college.

I had both Latin and French :-)

> But I believe my point was well made.

I've never been to NY, so I can't argue here.

#m
--
Arabic T-shirt sparks airport row
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5297822.stm>

I Am Not A Terrorist <http://itsnotallbad.com/iamnotaterrorist/>

[Matt Whiting]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> I had both Latin and French :-)

Very sorry to hear that.

Matt

[Martin Hotze[_1_]]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 12:43:00 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

>> I had both Latin and French :-)
>
>Very sorry to hear that.

well, I also had English (and opted out Greek in favor of French).
plus German as native language.

>Matt

#m
--
Arabic T-shirt sparks airport row
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5297822.stm>

I Am Not A Terrorist <http://itsnotallbad.com/iamnotaterrorist/>