More political BS .... Thanks CNN

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:28:19 +0000, Flyin'8 wrote:

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

It is not correct that the maximum allowed VFR is 1100 ft.

[If I were Steve I'd stop now. I can see the temptation sometimes laugh.]

I've flown over the East River VFR before at 2000 (or perhaps a little
higher). It just involves talking to one of the nice controllers at LGA.

I'm sure you - and any other pilot - know this; you were just being a
little lazy with your terminology. But who knows: some reporter might
read this thread someday.

I'd hate for us to be responsible for more misinformation. That would
make us no better than many politicians.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
The max altitude through the VFR airway is 1100 ft. Kinda difficult to
do
2000ft if the maximum allowed VFR is 1100 ft.

It is not correct that the maximum allowed VFR is 1100 ft.

I'm sure you - and any other pilot - know this; you were just being a
little lazy with your terminology. But who knows: some reporter might
read this thread someday.

I'd hate for us to be responsible for more misinformation.


Very nicely stated!

-c

Hmmm... As Gatt said... Nicely said.

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:26:15 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:28:19 +0000, Flyin'8 wrote:

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

It is not correct that the maximum allowed VFR is 1100 ft.

[If I were Steve I'd stop now. I can see the temptation sometimes laugh.]

I've flown over the East River VFR before at 2000 (or perhaps a little
higher). It just involves talking to one of the nice controllers at LGA.

I'm sure you - and any other pilot - know this; you were just being a
little lazy with your terminology. But who knows: some reporter might
read this thread someday.

I'd hate for us to be responsible for more misinformation. That would
make us no better than many politicians.

- Andrew


Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
See my online aerial photo album at
http://flying.4alexanders.com

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.

For CNN to do that is certainly not typical. One would expect the story to
go something like this:

"We were going to take this plane through the same area of the accident,
but GA is much to dangerous for us to do that. Instead we thought we would
re-enact through this sophisticated flight training software."

Insert picture of MS Flight Sim Here

Show Flight at excessive speed in a high G turn in narrow passage here

------

If they did infact fly through at 2kft on a GA aircraft, I commend them
because it is certainly not what one is accustomed to seeing from CNN.

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

wrote in message
...
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.

For CNN to do that is certainly not typical. One would expect the story
to
go something like this:

You said you don't watch the news. How do you know this then?


"We were going to take this plane through the same area of the accident,
but GA is much to dangerous for us to do that.

That's not what they said at all. Your ignorance is showing.

Instead we thought we would re-enact through this sophisticated flight
training software."

But they didn't. They flew an actual Cirrus through the course, except at a
higher altitude so that, gee whiz, if it turned out the Cirrus couldn't make
that turn, they wouldn't fly into the same building.

Seems altogether reasonable to me. A lot more than somebody who claimed
they don't watch the news explaining how CNN reports something to somebody
who just told them what CNN reported.

If they did infact fly through at 2kft on a GA aircraft, I commend them
because it is certainly not what one is accustomed to seeing from CNN.

Yeah, well, according to "one", "one" doesn't watch the news. So I'm a
little curious here about how much "one" doesn't in fact watch the news.

-c

Yeah, well, according to "one", "one" doesn't watch the news. So I'm a
little curious here about how much "one" doesn't in fact watch the news.

Where did you get that from?????

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

wrote in message
...
Yeah, well, according to "one", "one" doesn't watch the news. So I'm a
little curious here about how much "one" doesn't in fact watch the news.

Where did you get that from?????

You:

"It was then that I lost total respect for the media and since then I have
never intentionally sat down to watch the news."

Is there some reason why we should all doubt your word? I mean, except that
you can't seem to keep track of it?

-c

wrote in message
...
Yeah, well, according to "one", "one" doesn't watch the news. So I'm a
little curious here about how much "one" doesn't in fact watch the news.

Where did you get that from?????

Once again, YOU:

"It was then that I lost total respect for the media and since then I have
never intentionally sat down to watch the news."

Take note of your BS so it's not used against you next time.

-c

wrote in message
...
New York crash prompts calls for airspace restrictions...

Here's the link
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15247117/from/RS.3/

...
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.

FAA spokeswoman Laura J. Brown said Thursday the agency has decided to
review those guidelines and flight restrictions.


Lets see, a big airliner hits a building (for whatever reason) and thousands
die.

A small airplane hits a building (for whatever reason), and the occupants of
the airplane die.

Who should be restricted from flying over the city?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com wrote in message
news:qOCdncRmE9rDYrLYnZ2dnUVZ_u-

FAA spokeswoman Laura J. Brown said Thursday the agency has decided to
review those guidelines and flight restrictions.


Lets see, a big airliner hits a building (for whatever reason) and
thousands die.

A small airplane hits a building (for whatever reason), and the occupants
of the airplane die.

Who should be restricted from flying over the city?

It's a trick question. Airliners don't fly up that corridor and haven't
flown into any buildings there except when regulations and laws were already
broken. (Like another poster said, I don't think Osama's gonna call off a
hijacking because it's an airspace violation.)

One was deliberate. The other was accidental.

-c
"If you'd wish to be a gray-haired wonder/keep your nose out of people's
apartments"