More political BS .... Thanks CNN

wrote in message
...

Then why quote what politicians say as if the media said it? Why not
actually quote what the media said?

In general, the media (especially CNN by the way) holds GA in a bad light
in case you have not noticed.

My question remains. Why did you quote politicians if your target is the
media?

The CNN/MSNBC was a typo... You know... a mistake... Though by reading
the
article it sure stinks of CNN...

In other words, you make mistakes too. You're still saying CNN/MSNBC but
quoting politicians instead of, oh, say, CNN or MSNBC.

When there is a GA accident, the media crawls all over looking for the
most ignorant person they can find and give them the spotlight.

No, they really don't. This smacks of black helicopter conspiracy theory
and unfounded generalization. Show me a single directive where any news
source ever has said "go find the most ignorant person they can find."

What I'll do is, in the meantime, refer to CNN flying an Actual Cirrus along
the Actual Course last night which, by the way, I suspect you yourself have
not done.

To compound the blatent disregard of journalistic responsibility of the
media, they hand the mic over to the
politicians to spew their re-election garbage...

Please describe and cite this alleged journalistic "responsibility."

-c

writes:

The general aviation corridors around Manhattan have been “the Wild West,�
said Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y. He and Sen. Charles Schumer said anyone
flying near the island should be under the supervision of air traffic
controllers, especially in the post-Sept. 11 era.

“A smart terrorist could load up a small, little plane with biological,
chemical or even nuclear material and fly up the Hudson or East rivers, no
questions asked,� said Schumer, D-N.Y. “I hope this will be a wake-up call
to the FAA to re-examine flight patterns, which, amazingly enough, they
haven’t done since 9/11.�

Putting small aircraft under mandatory air traffic control would have
absolutely no effect at all on the risk of terrorism.

New York’s Republican governor, George Pataki, also said the Federal
Aviation Administration “needs to take a much tougher line� about private,
or general aviation, flights over the city.

Except when the flights are transporting him, I presume.

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

wrote in message
...

The general aviation corridors around Manhattan have been "the Wild West,"
said Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y. He and Sen. Charles Schumer said anyone
flying near the island should be under the supervision of air traffic
controllers, especially in the post-Sept. 11 era.

CNN is responsible for what politicians say?

Actually, what CNN did last night was take a Cirrus up and recreate the
flight including trying to make the turn...the difference is, CNN did it at
2000 feet, which is what sane pilots would do, such that they didn't tangle
their prop in anybody's furniture. I thought that was pretty cool of them.


-c

gatt wrote:
I thought that was pretty cool of them.

That's because I'm sure it was quite easy for them to do. G

A CNN reporter, Miles O'Brien, owns his own SR20.

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
et...
gatt wrote:
I thought that was pretty cool of them.

That's because I'm sure it was quite easy for them to do. G

A CNN reporter, Miles O'Brien, owns his own SR20.

Oh, he must be part of the vast anti-GA media conspiracy then.
Y'know..."finding the most ignorant person" to comment and all of that.

-c

CNN is responsible for what politicians say?

You have got to be kidding me...


Actually, what CNN did last night was take a Cirrus up and recreate the
flight including trying to make the turn...the difference is, CNN did it
at 2000 feet, which is what sane pilots would do, such that they didn't
tangle their prop in anybody's furniture. I thought that was pretty cool
of them.

The max altitude through the VFR airway is 1100 ft. Kinda difficult to do
2000ft if the maximum allowed VFR is 1100 ft.

Of course, less than 1100 ft is not safe by my standards...

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

wrote in message
...

The max altitude through the VFR airway is 1100 ft. Kinda difficult to do
2000ft if the maximum allowed VFR is 1100 ft.

Of course, less than 1100 ft is not safe by my standards...

They shouldn't do it then.

Safety should not be regulated. If you can't fly your friggin' airplane
without augering into the side of an apartment building, you shouldn't be
flying your airplane around apartment buildings.

Otherwise, the FAA is gonna figure they need to make a law because pilots
can't control themselves.


-c

gatt writes:

Safety should not be regulated. If you can't fly your friggin' airplane
without augering into the side of an apartment building, you shouldn't be
flying your airplane around apartment buildings.

As a pilot-in-command, you're legally permitted to do anything
necessary to ensure the safety of your aircraft and the people aboard
(keeping the safety of others in mind as well, of course), and this
includes ignoring regulations if necessary. However, you have a lot
of explaining to do later on if you break the rules, in some cases.

While you're PIC, then, you're master and commander, subject to a
possible review of your good judgement after you land, if you decide
to break the rules in the name of safety in your own sovereign
estimation.

This is important because you can conceivably do anything if you can
show that safety required it at the time. In this particular, case,
though, as in most cases where regulations are potentially violated,
the safety argument might not work (you can do what you need to remain
safe, but that won't justify carelessly putting yourself in danger in
the first place, when it comes time to review what you did).

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Safety should not be regulated. If you can't fly your friggin' airplane
without augering into the side of an apartment building, you shouldn't be
flying your airplane around apartment buildings.

As a pilot-in-command, you're legally permitted to do anything
necessary to ensure the safety of your aircraft and the people aboard
(keeping the safety of others in mind as well, of course), and this
includes ignoring regulations if necessary.

Yes, we know this.

One thing that would ensure the safety of the aircraft and people aboard
would be to stay clear of apartment buildings. For example, I fly over
downtown Portland and the west hills all the time. There a "canyon" between
the west hills and the buildings of Portland that's maybe 2000' or
more...probably closer to a mile. I find that Portland is just as
spectacular at 3000' then at 1500' and, if I needed to get closer or risk
violating airspace restrictions, I find that PDX tower is perfectly
reasonable and willing to issue appropriate vectors and clearance.

It might be a lot of fun to fly between the buildings and the west hills,
but, beyond the interest of the public and GA, I have My Own Ass to think
about.

-c

"gatt" wrote in message
...
Safety should not be regulated. If you can't fly your friggin' airplane
without augering into the side of an apartment building, you shouldn't be
flying your airplane around apartment buildings.

The problem here is not someone flying their aircraft *around* apartment
buildings but rather *into*... sick-grin

Odd are, the pilot just screwed up in his thinking of what sort of bank
angle might be necessary... Personally, I would have thrown my plane over
on it's side in a 60+ degree bank and had no problem with it... Hell, it
lets you see the ground better when it's straight out your side window
anyway...

It all boils down to the Law of Gross Tonnage... Buildings win over
aircraft.. Hell, the best we can hope for is a draw (i.e. the building also
gets destroyed like with the WTC towers)... With our small aircraft, it's
not like we're going to do much damage to a building, but it's a pretty good
chance that there won't be much left of our aircrafts afterwards... Oh well,
Darwin will protect us, right?