The East River VFR corridor is now history

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?i...c00754avc5.jpg
http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?i...c00755and8.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?i...280075alm6.jpg


--
Peter

"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.

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.

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.

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?i...c00754avc5.jpg
http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?i...c00755and8.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?i...280075alm6.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)

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 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

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?i...c00754avc5.jpg
http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?i...c00755and8.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?i...280075alm6.jpg


--
Peter

"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

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?