The East River VFR corridor is now history

Peter Duniho wrote:

Even that article clearly explains in the first paragraph that the corridor
is NOT closed to fixed-wind aircraft.

The first paragraph of the article:

"Fixed-wing planes have been banned from the East River corridor in New
York unless the pilot is in contact with air traffic control,"

My understanding of a VFR corridor is that one need NOT talk to ATC.
Requiring aircraft to be in contact with ATC when overflying the East River
*and* not permitting flight below 1,100 feet is, in my interpretation, the
end of the corridor, with the exception of those aircraft based at the
seaplane bases on the river.

--
Peter

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
The first paragraph of the article:

"Fixed-wing planes have been banned from the East River corridor in New
York unless the pilot is in contact with air traffic control,"

You quoted the part that disputes your post.

No aircraft are permitted in Class B, C, or D airspace unless they are in
contact with ATC. That doesn't mean that those airspace are closed to
aircraft. Likewise, a radio communication requirement for the corridor in
no way constitutes closure to fixed-wing aircraft.

My understanding of a VFR corridor is that one need NOT talk to ATC.

Normally, this would be the case. So? This is an exception to the general
rule.

Requiring aircraft to be in contact with ATC when overflying the East
River
*and* not permitting flight below 1,100 feet is, in my interpretation, the
end of the corridor, with the exception of those aircraft based at the
seaplane bases on the river.

I don't see how. The NOTAM specifically allows flight within the corridor
as long as they are authorized and under positive control by ATC.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

I don't see how. The NOTAM specifically allows flight within the corridor
as long as they are authorized and under positive control by ATC.

Apparently I am discussing semantics. The corridor used to be 1100 feet
and below, and no flight (exceptions notwithstanding) is now authorized
below 1,100 feet. Additionally, the freedom of flying over the East River
(up to the northern tip of Roosevelt Island) without obtaining a clearance
is no longer permitted.

Those are my two points in support of my interpretation that the
"corridor," as it used to be known, is now closed.




--
Peter

"Peter R." wrote:

Apparently I am discussing semantics.

Peter, I am mistaken. I assumed the CNN article about this restriction
was correct and believed the lower limit of 1,100 was stated in the TFR,
until I just read it.


--
Peter

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:08:27 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

Even that article clearly explains in the first paragraph that the corridor
is NOT closed to fixed-wind aircraft. If one reads the actual NOTAM, one
will see that amphibious fixed-wing aircraft operating at the seaplane based
are also permitted (why amphibious and not any seaplane, I don't know), even
without ATC approval.

A relative in high places, perhaps?

Peter R. wrote:
FAA just announced effective immediately, the East River corridor will be
closed to fixed wing aircraft:

http://tinyurl.com/yg9lc5

Not the best shots, but here are a couple of pictures from that side of
Manhattan taken during my one and only flight up the East River back in
January 2004:

http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?i...c00754avc5.jpg
http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?i...c00755and8.jpg

And a couple from the west side, in case this is the next one to fall:

http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?image=theladyhr7.jpg
http://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?i...280075alm6.jpg


--
Peter

Forgive me for not being aware of this, but I fly up in Canada, and in
our CARs (602.14 and 602.15), Canadian regs. very specifically prohibit

the operation of a fixedwing A/C over a built up area at less than 1000

feet above the highest obstacle within 2000 feet horizontally of the
A/C. The exception to this rule is if the A/C is conducting a
take-off, an approach, or landing.

As I have noticed in the discussion of the unforunate death of Cory
Lidle, the East River VFR corridor is about 2000 feet wide in many
places, yet fixed wing A/C are regularly flown there at altitudes as
low as 400 feet AGL, with many buildings along the shore-line up to
several hundred feet tall.

Considering that the ideal flight paths of A/C up and down this VFR
corridor are within a few hundred feet of the shoreline, this type of
flying would not be permitted in Canada.

What's the FAA regs. on the matter? Is there some exception in place
for New York's VFR corridors?

PPL-A (Canada)

"PPL-A (Canada)" wrote in message
ps.com...
Forgive me for not being aware of this, but I fly up in Canada, and in
our CARs (602.14 and 602.15), Canadian regs. very specifically prohibit

the operation of a fixedwing A/C over a built up area at less than 1000

feet above the highest obstacle within 2000 feet horizontally of the
A/C. The exception to this rule is if the A/C is conducting a
take-off, an approach, or landing.

What's the FAA regs. on the matter? Is there some exception in place
for New York's VFR corridors?

Same answer as yesterday.

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:
"PPL-A (Canada)" wrote in message
ps.com...
Forgive me for not being aware of this, but I fly up in Canada, and in
our CARs (602.14 and 602.15), Canadian regs. very specifically prohibit

the operation of a fixedwing A/C over a built up area at less than 1000

feet above the highest obstacle within 2000 feet horizontally of the
A/C. The exception to this rule is if the A/C is conducting a
take-off, an approach, or landing.

What's the FAA regs. on the matter? Is there some exception in place
for New York's VFR corridors?

Same answer as yesterday.

--Gary

Sorry Gary:

But you didnt't really answer my question ... what are the regulations
(the FAR #s)? I'm curious and would like to read them (on-line if
possible) to get an understnding of the subtle differences. Also ...
is there a source on-line to read the NOTAM, or whatever, that allows
the exception to the regulation in the corridor. I'd like to read the
wording of that too.

Thanks very much,

PPL-A (Canada)

"PPL-A (Canada)" wrote in message
oups.com...
what are the regulations
(the FAR #s)? I'm curious and would like to read them (on-line if
possible) to get an understnding of the subtle differences. Also ...
is there a source on-line to read the NOTAM, or whatever, that allows
the exception to the regulation in the corridor. I'd like to read the
wording of that too.

No problem. FARS:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...4/14tab_02.tpl
(see 91.119).

TFR NOTAM: See yesterday's thread "AS/MEL now need ATC permission over East
River".

--Gary

"PPL-A (Canada)" wrote in message
oups.com...
Also ...
is there a source on-line to read the NOTAM, or whatever, that allows
the exception to the regulation in the corridor. I'd like to read the
wording of that too.

Oops, I neglected the online pointer you requested. You can see older NOTAMs
he http://www.faa.gov/NTAP/ .

For the latest ones, I use DUATS, but you need an account for that.

--Gary