AS/MEL now need ATC permission over East River

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article , "me" wrote:

With respect.. The reason this will help is that when flying up that
part
of the river while talking to atc they will be able to clear you into the
class b and LGA's airspace with out getting stuck in the canyon and not
being in a position to make the narrow turn to try and stay out of the
class
b.

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).

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?

--Gary

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