The East River VFR corridor is now history

Gary Drescher wrote:


!FDC 6/3495 ZNY EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, VFR
FLIGHT OPERATIONS INVOLVING FIXED WING AIRCRAFT (EXCLUDING AMPHIBIOUS
FIXED WING AIRCRAFT LANDING OR DEPARTING NEW YORK SKYPORTS INC
SEAPLANE BASE)

Umm...what about true seaplanes. I guess since they aren't
amphibious, they don't get the exception?

"EridanMan" wrote in message
ups.com...
All puerile sarcasm aside... I do have to agree that having such a tiny
little sliver of uncontrolled VFR boxed in like that was just inviting
people to take un-necessary risks... especially if the local center was
less willing to grant a class Bravo Transition to light singles because
'they had their space below' (I have _NO_ idea if this was actually the
case... but I can understand how an out of town pilot might be given
that impression).

It's not the case at all. I've gone up the East River multiple times, both
in the VFR corridor and communicating with LGA ATCT. The LGA controllers
have always been very helpful and professional, calling out helicopter and
other traffic as I traversed the area, asking if I wanted a handoff or
wanted to exit the Class B, etc. The only time they denied my request to be
cleared into the Class B was when traffic was landing on runway 4, and they
were actually using that part of the class B for bigger iron than my C-172.

Gary Drescher wrote:
"PPL-A (Canada)" wrote in message
ps.com...
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.

What's the FAA regs. on the matter? Is there some exception in place
for New York's VFR corridors?

Same answer as yesterday.

--Gary

Sorry Gary:

But you didnt't really answer my question ... what are the regulations
(the FAR #s)? I'm curious and would like to read them (on-line if
possible) to get an understnding of the subtle differences. Also ...
is there a source on-line to read the NOTAM, or whatever, that allows
the exception to the regulation in the corridor. I'd like to read the
wording of that too.

Thanks very much,

PPL-A (Canada)

"PPL-A (Canada)" wrote in message
oups.com...
what are the regulations
(the FAR #s)? I'm curious and would like to read them (on-line if
possible) to get an understnding of the subtle differences. Also ...
is there a source on-line to read the NOTAM, or whatever, that allows
the exception to the regulation in the corridor. I'd like to read the
wording of that too.

No problem. FARS:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...4/14tab_02.tpl
(see 91.119).

TFR NOTAM: See yesterday's thread "AS/MEL now need ATC permission over East
River".

--Gary

"PPL-A (Canada)" wrote in message
oups.com...
Also ...
is there a source on-line to read the NOTAM, or whatever, that allows
the exception to the regulation in the corridor. I'd like to read the
wording of that too.

Oops, I neglected the online pointer you requested. You can see older NOTAMs
he http://www.faa.gov/NTAP/ .

For the latest ones, I use DUATS, but you need an account for that.

--Gary

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Peter, I am mistaken. I assumed the CNN article about this restriction
was correct and believed the lower limit of 1,100 was stated in the TFR,
until I just read it.

Okay...thanks. I couldn't figure out where you were getting the 1100' thing
from, since it wasn't in the NOTAM. I see where the confusion came from
now...guess we can't trust CNN to do our preflight research for us, eh?

(For what it's worth, the language in the CNN article didn't even seem to
clearly mean flight below 1100' was prohibited. One could just as easily
have interpreted the phrase to mean flight was *only* allowed below 1100',
just to confuse things further ).

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

Peter Duniho wrote:

(For what it's worth, the language in the CNN article didn't even seem to
clearly mean flight below 1100' was prohibited. One could just as easily
have interpreted the phrase to mean flight was *only* allowed below 1100',
just to confuse things further ).

I am guilty of skimming articles in this newsgroup often, rather than
slowing down and fully comprehending them.

--
Peter

As I read the new reg, I think all it means is that the "end" of the
VFR box canyon above the East river has been moved from the northern
end of Roosevelt island to the southern end of the island. That is all
I read. You can still fly up the East river to that point without
calling ATC, which is not as far as before. Now you can go as far as
the UN building before making the big 180 back out.

Bud

PPL-A (Canada) wrote:
Gary Drescher wrote:
"PPL-A (Canada)" wrote in message
ps.com...
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.

What's the FAA regs. on the matter? Is there some exception in place
for New York's VFR corridors?

Same answer as yesterday.

--Gary

Sorry Gary:

But you didnt't really answer my question ... what are the regulations
(the FAR #s)? I'm curious and would like to read them (on-line if
possible) to get an understnding of the subtle differences. Also ...
is there a source on-line to read the NOTAM, or whatever, that allows
the exception to the regulation in the corridor. I'd like to read the
wording of that too.

Thanks very much,

PPL-A (Canada)

wrote in message
oups.com...
As I read the new reg, I think all it means is that the "end" of the
VFR box canyon above the East river has been moved from the northern
end of Roosevelt island to the southern end of the island. That is all
I read. You can still fly up the East river to that point without
calling ATC, which is not as far as before. Now you can go as far as
the UN building before making the big 180 back out.

No, because the end is moved to the southern end of a *different* island,
well south of the UN.

--Gary