"Why was a plane able to fly over New York?"

In article . com,
says...

..


A bit terse perhaps, but unusually eloquent and to the point for Skylune!

GF

In article ,
says...
..

The center of Berlin is a restricted area after an ultralight pilot
commited suicide with his plane on the lawn in front of what amounts to
the German version of the House of Congress. The f***ing self-centered
idiot...



I agree. That was my first (admittedly self-centered) thought when I
learned about 9/11 - before it was understood what was going on. I saw a
small internet headline saying "plane crashes into world trade center".
I thought "small plane" and I thought "******* is going to ruin it for all
of us..."

GF

"FLAV8R" wrote in message
...

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

If you haven't watched the news then it's pretty curious how you know so
much about what and how they present their news. That's like me commenting
on how the New York Yankees play baseball when I haven't watched them play a
game in over a decade.

Living in Florida for most of my life I found that they (media) are also
directly responsible for most of the persons that choose not to leave the
area when a hurricane is approaching,

Actually, as an American of free will I like to believe that I am directly
responsible for my own actions. The people who are directly responsible
for choosing not to leave the area are the people who choose not to leave
the area.

-c

Greg Farris writes:

Utter nonsense.
It's never been "forbidden" for IFR operations to overfly Paris.
It's "always" been forbidden for VFR operations to penetrate Paris' Class "A".
None of this changed after 9/11. The only thing that changed at that time was
that the only VFR corridor anywhere near Paris (over LeBourget Airport) was
closed - probably forever.

I'm just going by what I read. I do see a lot more aircraft
overflying the city than in the past, when they were scarce.

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

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:57:13 -0500, Emily wrote:

It's truly saddening that everyone seems to be resorting to anti-GA-speak.
Why would a plane NOT be able to fly over New York?

I was surprised to learn of the exclusion zones too, once upon a time.
I'd always assumed that the entire area was tightly controlled (what I'd
think of, now that I'm a pilot, as class B) simply because of the
proximity and number major airports: TEB, EWR, and JFK. I think LGA gets
some use too, still.

But that's not the same thing as believing that a plane couldn't fly over
NY. I just thought that it would be under positive "control".

What irks me is that people so quickly decide that small and large
airplanes should be treated differently, to the disfavor of small
airplanes. Those cowards on the news claim shock that a small airplane
can fly overhead when those small airplanes had nothing to do with the
2001/09 attack.

Yet mention the idea that large aircraft should be kept 30 miles away, and
nobody seems to like that idea...despite that idea being consistent with
their claimed fears.

It's irrational.

Although I was on the Jersey side on 2001/09/11, I'd a lot of friends on
the wrong side that day. Quite a few passed through my office leaving
Manhattan for temporary space elsewhere. At least one of the firemen I
know was on the scene, and I'd be surprised if none of the others were.

None whine as much as the people I see on the news. Admittedly, there's
some sample bias. But I wonder if the newsies look to pick out the
cowards.

We know that the politicians stoop for craven vote.

Does New York have a way of traffic reporting that
doesn't involved aircraft?

There are quite a few traffic cameras at fixed mount points, in fact. But
helicopters are still used too.

[I believe that two "hurtled out of the sky", "smashing into the ground"
with a "astonishing" absence of "flaming wreckage" over the past year or
so.]

Do they not allow helicopters into downtown hospitals?

I know that at least one hospital on the east side of Manhattan has a pad
on the roof. I kept a close watch during a visit to Federal Court one day
recently, but nobody broke the boredom by appearing. There are also a few
commercial helipads at the periphery of Manhattan, whose helicopters make
the exclusion zone flying *far* more exciting {8^).

- Andrew

"Morgans" wrote in message ...
:
: "Greg Farris" wrote
:
: This is the first GA crash into
: a NYC skyscraper I'm aware of (correct me if I'm mistaken) and only the
: second accidental crash of any plane into a NYC skyscraper.
:
: How about the crash of a B-25 into the Empire State building, in the 40's?
: --
: Jim in NC


Ban military aircraft from overflying any city!

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"FLAV8R" wrote in message
...

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

If you haven't watched the news then it's pretty curious how you know so
much about what and how they present their news. That's like me
commenting on how the New York Yankees play baseball when I haven't
watched them play a game in over a decade.

How old are you? Does your daddy know that your playing with his computer?
If your looking to tear apart my qoute then use it correctly.
I said "I have never intentionally sat down to watch the news" that doesn't
mean
I don't get to watch it. At work they have monitors everywhere playing CNN
and
after hearing the same news for an entire 8 hour shift you come home knowing
more than you want to.

Living in Florida for most of my life I found that they (media) are also
directly responsible for most of the persons that choose not to leave
the area when a hurricane is approaching,

Actually, as an American of free will I like to believe that I am directly
responsible for my own actions. The people who are directly responsible
for choosing not to leave the area are the people who choose not to leave
the area.

-c

Again your showing your age.. It has nothing to do with free will.
Many people watch the news as a valid source of information, and in
the long run the person who has left the area 5 or 6 times based on the
over sensationalized reports of a massive hurricane approaching have
come to find that the reports are more for ratings than accuracy.

So when the next hurricane approaches you might not be so quick to
leave the comfort of your home and spend your day in highway gridlock
and overpriced hotels (due to price gouging) not to mention possibly
coming home to a house that has been looted.

I would think that you must have experienced that yourself living in
New York.

Now if I'm not mistaken your going to find some sort of idiotic response
to what I have just tried to educate you with.

David - KGYH

Ron Natalie wrote:
Emily wrote:

What cities do not allow GA near/over them?

DC.

Untrue. GA is still permitted over DC. It's heavily
restricted (to the point where it's killed most GA
traffic) but it's possible.

I guess I haven't been paying much attention. When I stopped paying
attention, it wasn't allowed.

Guy Elden Jr wrote:
The voice of reason! --

"However, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a recreational pilot with decades of
experience, said he believes the skies are safe under the current
rules.

"We have very few accidents for an awful lot of traffic," he said.
"Every time you have an automobile accident, you're not going to go and
close the streets or prohibit people from driving." "

Hope people listen to him.
But I also wish they wouldn't refer to him as a recreational pilot.

Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2006-10-13, wrote:
snip

You also have to remember, certainly in the US - many pilots simply
illegally fly over the cities (not being able to even remotely meet
14 CFR 91.119 (a)).

How does flying over a city violate that FAR?