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.