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

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 07:28:25 +0200, Greg Farris

"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.

Oddly enough, most commercial traffic from the west to LGA goes
DIRECTLY over Manhattan. Check out flightaware or passur and watch
the flight tracks.

Roger (K8RI) writes:

Here even with the corrupt politicians, biased news, and misguided
leadership we still live in the greatest country with the most
individual freedoms on the globe.

That claim is beginning to sound a bit hollow. Just repeating it
won't make it so, especially if you are throwing away your freedoms
even as you chant about their sacredness.

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

Roger,

we still live in the greatest country with the most
individual freedoms on the globe.


The guys in Gitmo probably have a different view.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

we still live in the greatest country with the most
individual freedoms on the globe.

The guys in Gitmo probably have a different view.

The guys in Gitmo had that "different view" BEFORE they
got to Gitmo.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Bob,

The guys in Gitmo had that "different view" BEFORE they
got to Gitmo.


If only... You need to read up on that.

Just one example: They just released a guy from Germany after 4 years -
he had done nothing but hang out with the wrong people in Pakistan
(those that wanted to collect on the bounty offered by the US). No due
process, no chance. FOUR YEARS!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Roger,

we still live in the greatest country with the most
individual freedoms on the globe.


The guys in Gitmo probably have a different view.

That's their problem! If they hadn't illegally raised arms against us.
they wouldn't be there!

On 2006-10-16, Roger (K8RI) wrote:
Look up the landing figures for an older Bonanza and a 172.
Using the proper speeds the Bo can land as short or shorter than a
172.

Not over a 50 foot obstacle with *no* engine power. I've flown a
reasonable amount in the S-35 Bonanza (which I think is older, well,
it's older than me anyway!) - and with engine power that's true.
However, the Beech manual advises you to increase the approach speed by
something like 10 knots when landing without engine power so as to have
sufficient energy to flare at the bottom. A Cessna 172 you can come in
slowly with the prop windmilling, and still have enough energy to flare.
IIRC, for the S-35 at gross weight, without power the speed was on the
order of 80 knots indicated. In a Cessna 172, your final approach
without power at gross is 65 knots indicated.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 2006-10-14, Emily wrote:
Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2006-10-14, Emily wrote:
snip

You could argue in that in something slow with a steep
approach path (say, a 150 or a 172 with barn door flaps) that you could
land in some of the patches of wasteland in the I-10 corridor without
causing an undue hazard.

That's what I was thinking of. Maybe my definition of "low" is
different than anyone elses, but when I overfly Dallas, I see dozens of
places to land if necessary. But I'm also not into flying over anything
at 500 AGL.

I always flew the Houston corridor at 2000' (which is pretty much 2000'
AGL since the whole area is close to sea level). Much of it is very
densely populated - suburbs, interstates, skyscrapers and that sort of
thing.

There are dozens of places to land - but far fewer if qualified "without
causing undue hazard to persons or property on the ground". A football
field is not a place where you can land without causing undue hazard
unless you can be absolutely certain that it's not being used. Neither
are many city parks because there will be people there not expecting
a ton of metal to be bearing down on them at 65 knots. The only places
that really qualify are those pieces of wasteland, or perhaps empty
parking lots of closed down malls. I-10 certainly does not qualify.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Orval,

If they hadn't illegally raised arms against us.
they wouldn't be there!


You are wrong. That's not who is in Gitmo. Not by a long shot (pardon
the pun).

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:53:19 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

Mxsmanic,

For most people, airplane + New York = terrorists.


And prohibiting flying over NY would stop terrorists exactly how? I can
just see it: Mohammad Atta calling Osama: "Hey boss, we have to call
the thing off, they've prohibited flying over NY!"

One network and I don't remember which, did quote the AOPA's statement
about a small car being capable of carrying much more of any weapon
(biological, explosive, or what ever) than a small plane.

ABC...and they blew it

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2006...ve-winner.html

We Have a Winner
Yesterday, I speculated about how long it would take the MSM to print or
broadcast a story about the potential terrorist threat from general aviation
aircraft--despite ample data suggesting that light aircraft pose little
danger as terrorist weapons.

Sure enough, ABC's Lisa Stark was one of the first out of the box. On
Wednesday's edition of "ABC World News," she filed the obligatory report on
the threat posed by terrorists stealing light aircraft and using them as
weapons. Not surprisingly, the "threat" was grossly exaggerated, and she
even managed to quote an AOPA spokesman out of context, to boot.
Interestingly, I can't find her story on the ABC News website, so perhaps
members of the AOPA complained, or her bosses didn't think much of her
report.
---------------------------------------