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.

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

"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...

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...

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

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.

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

"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.