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

The one that hit the Empire State Building was military, but
many B25 were sold and converted to executive travel
aircraft before the production of new factory cabin class
airplanes.


Look for a old movie with James Garner, CASH McCall.



wrote in message
ups.com...
| Morgans wrote:
|
| 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.
|
| How about the crash of a B-25 into the Empire State
building, in the 40's?
|
| I'm fairly certain a B-25 isn't a GA craft.
|
| RFM
| http://www.cyclelicio.us/
|

"Morgans" wrote in message ...
:
: "Greg Farris" wrote
:
: 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.
:
: How about the crash of a B-25 into the Empire State building, in the 40's?
: --
: Jim in NC


Ban military aircraft from overflying any city!

On 2006-10-13, Greg Farris wrote:
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.

That's rather inaccurate. In most of Europe, the regulation for flying
over a city is the same as it is in the US: you must comply with the
regulations for the airspace you are in, you must be at an altitude at
which you won't cause a damage to people or property on the ground if
your engine quits, and you must be at a minimum altitude (which is being
made ICAO-compliant over Europe - i.e. the same minimum altitude rules
that exist in the US FARs with virtually the same wording).

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

Dylan Smith wrote:

That's rather inaccurate. In most of Europe, the regulation for flying
over a city is the same as it is in the US:

isn't the airspace above London class A all the way to the ground?

--Sylvain

Dylan Smith wrote:

That's rather inaccurate. In most of Europe, the regulation for flying
over a city is the same as it is in the US: you must comply with the
regulations for the airspace you are in,



Well yes - It's the same as the US in that you must obey the
regulations where you are!!
When it's Class A all the way to the ground, then you may not fly there
VFR at all, but according to your definition you could call this "the
same" because you "must obey the airspace rules.

GF

On 2006-10-13, wrote:
Well yes - It's the same as the US in that you must obey the
regulations where you are!!
When it's Class A all the way to the ground, then you may not fly there
VFR at all, but according to your definition you could call this "the
same" because you "must obey the airspace rules.

Since when did Class A become prohibited airspace? The original
assertion was that 'in Europe, light planes cannot fly over most large
cities', which is patently wrong. Manchester has a class D surface area.
Leeds has a class D surface area. Newcastle has a class D surface area.
So does Edinburgh and Glasgow. All major cities. So not only can you fly
a light plane over London (so long as you are IFR, and can meet the
minimum altitude rules which are the same as the US, and the rule that
also exists in the US about being able to make a forced landing without
endangering people on the ground) you can fly a light plane over all
other large cities in Britain VFR.

So the assertion that light planes cannot fly over most European cities
is incorrect.

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

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

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

What cities do not allow GA near/over them? I've not heard of any.
Also, it should be pointed out that the VFR corridors exist for ATC as
much as GA. They don't want to have to deal with VFR traffic transiting
the airspace anymore then the traffic wants to deal with them. That
being said I fly inside the Class B airspace on a regular basis,
transiting from south to outer Long Island. ATC is busy enough in that
area and does not want to have to talk to every plane in the air in a
100 mile circle. I will allow that perhaps the East River corridor is a
candidate for shutting down as it's not a transit flyway but rather for
site seeing.

John Theune wrote:
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

What cities do not allow GA near/over them?

DC.

Emily wrote:

What cities do not allow GA near/over them?

DC.

Untrue. GA is still permitted over DC. It's heavily
restricted (to the point where it's killed most GA
traffic) but it's possible.