AS/MEL now need ATC permission over East River
In article ,
"Gary Drescher" wrote:
If that's the reason, then they should make a class b clearance a
requirement
for fixed-wing aircraft operating in that corridor.
Perhaps exceptions can be made at the controller's discretion (for example,
in the case of a slower plane with a small turning radius).
Why ATC? Why shouldn't the responsibility be on the PIC?
Bottomline: rules/regulations should say what they want. Regulation by
hoping and hinting almost always fails and have unintended adverse
side-effects.
Why deny the controller some reasonable flexibility in this situation?
I'm not. I'm questioning the reasoning behind the rule. I'm looking
for a logical justification for the rule and hoping that the rule it isn't
just a knee-jerk reaction.
And why deny the PIC his responsibility in this situation?
--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate
|