If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Why was a plane able to fly over New York?"
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Why was a plane able to fly over New York?"
John Theune wrote: You are confusing GA with VFR traffic. While some of those cities MAY have controlled airspace to the ground, they do not ban GA. Even if they have controlled airspace to the ground it may not prohibit VFR traffic. Yes Class A requires IFR but if it's Class B or below then you just need permission to fly VFR in there. You are correct to clarify. I was referring to VFR, which I believe is the subject of this thread, but I accept your correction. At this point there is no Class B in France - and until recently no Class C either. Class A is defined the same (no VFR) but applied differently than in the US. It is used to keep VFR traffic far from Paris. It is very likely that JAA rules will bring European airspace closer to the structure familiar to US pilots, and there will be more Class B and C airspace - however I believe it is just as likely that cities like Lyon (class C) will refuse access to most or all VFR. GF |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Why was a plane able to fly over New York?"
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." " Emily wrote: Front page of Yahoo right now, followed by, "A tragic small plane crash brings to light a surprising fact." 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? Was there a rule I wasn't aware of? Does New York have a way of traffic reporting that doesn't involved aircraft? Do they not allow helicopters into downtown hospitals? I have no problem with the media reporting the facts, but this makes me angry. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Why was a plane able to fly over New York?"
I also wonder about Asia - perhaps someone here knows.
In my post, I was not referring only to Europe, which is possibly the most liberal part of "the rest of the world". I have traveled a fair amount to Asia for my work, and I have never seen GA aircraft over the cities (and this time I do mean GA - not just VFR). In fact, in China one doesn't see any aircraft at all above the cities. In Indonesia I've seen some airline traffic, but no GA. In Japan I do not recall seeing any smaller planes above the cities, nor in South Korea (haven't been to the "other" Korea). Does anyone here know what the rules are in these places? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Why was a plane able to fly over New York?"
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)). It went on all the time in Houston. It's almost impossible to use the I-10 corridor legally in any fixed wing plane much bigger than a Cessna 150, and even then there were virtually no places you could make a forced landing without causing undue hazard to people or property on the ground. -- Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid. Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Why was a plane able to fly over New York?"
Greg Farris wrote: "Why was a plane able to fly over New York?" The question is not ridiculous. Many cities in the world do not allow GA flight anywhere near, and many do not allow commercial overflight either (usually for noise abatement considerations). To allow it, one would have to submit that the risk to benefit ratio is favorable. Admittedly, the risk is not great - even trivial compared with the risk of other activities related to individual freedoms (like driving cars and trucks, which claim victims daily in NYC). 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. So, what's the benefit? For airliners it's pretty obvious, with LaGuardia where it is, and for GA - er, um..... Don't get me wrong, I believe the freedom of an individual to experience flight over New York is an important benefit, and I certainly hope the corridors remain open, but seen from a political point of view... Imagine the fallout if a second accident of this type were to occur within the next year or so. Unlikely, perhaps, but certainly not impossible. That;s the risk that someone like Bloomberg faces today, should he come forth and defend the existance of VFR privileges. Americans believe strongly in personal freedoms - many places in the world (like almost all of Europe) do not even wait for one such incident to banish small planes from their cities' skies. Individual freedoms are simply not held in high enough esteem to make the combined risk and nuisance factor worth it, even if both are small. The persistance of VFR privileges over NYC (and I believe it will persist) will be a strong affirmation of the American belief in individual freedoms. "Live free or die" - isn't it, Skylune? GF ... |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Why was a plane able to fly over New York?"
I learned today that New York mayor Bloomberg is a "recreational pilot." I
guess that's different from the "amateur pilot" that Corey Lidle was, according to the talking heads. Bob Gardner "Emily" wrote in message . .. Front page of Yahoo right now, followed by, "A tragic small plane crash brings to light a surprising fact." 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? Was there a rule I wasn't aware of? Does New York have a way of traffic reporting that doesn't involved aircraft? Do they not allow helicopters into downtown hospitals? I have no problem with the media reporting the facts, but this makes me angry. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Why was a plane able to fly over New York?"
Dylan Smith wrote: So the assertion that light planes cannot fly over most European cities is incorrect. Indeed, I was referring to VFR, and became sloppy with terminology. A clarification was proposed, which I accepted, and I do apologize for any confusion caused. I felt, and still feel that VFR is the pertinent issue in this thread, and in that respect the assertion that the situation in Europe is comparable to that in the US is just as incorrect. In fact, the only European cities that compare to New York in size do not allow VFR operations. GF |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Why was a plane able to fly over New York?"
Paris for sure is Class A to the ground.
The IFR approach (for small airplanes) for Toussous-les-Nobles leads right across the Eiffel tower and ends near Versailles... 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... -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Passenger crash-lands plane after pilot suffers heart attack | R.L. | Piloting | 7 | May 7th 05 11:17 PM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | October 1st 03 07:27 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | September 1st 03 07:27 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | August 1st 03 07:27 AM |