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

Well, for starters it's published, and publically available. Secondly,
I've flown a lot around Paris and France in general. I admit I haven't
flown in Germany, but I do go to Munich several time a year and the
skies over that city are hardly buzzing with light aircraft (like zero)
so perhaps it's more restrictive than you make it sound?


Berlin has the only restricted area over a big city in Germany. It is
limited to the very center of the administration. So it is exactly as
non-restrictive as I make it sound.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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

...

In article . com,
says...

..


A bit terse perhaps, but unusually eloquent and to the point for Skylune!

GF

Greg Farris writes:

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.

It used to be forbidden to overfly Paris. Ironically, not long after
9/11, the government authorized overflight, although it's still rare.

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

In article ,
says...


Greg Farris writes:

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.

It used to be forbidden to overfly Paris. Ironically, not long after
9/11, the government authorized overflight, although it's still rare.



Utter nonsense.
It's never been "forbidden" for IFR operations to overfly Paris.
It's "always" been forbidden for VFR operations to penetrate Paris' Class "A".
None of this changed after 9/11. The only thing that changed at that time was
that the only VFR corridor anywhere near Paris (over LeBourget Airport) was
closed - probably forever.

Greg Farris writes:

Utter nonsense.
It's never been "forbidden" for IFR operations to overfly Paris.
It's "always" been forbidden for VFR operations to penetrate Paris' Class "A".
None of this changed after 9/11. The only thing that changed at that time was
that the only VFR corridor anywhere near Paris (over LeBourget Airport) was
closed - probably forever.

I'm just going by what I read. I do see a lot more aircraft
overflying the city than in the past, when they were scarce.

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

Mxsmanic,

It used to be forbidden to overfly Paris.


Bull. Provide the NOTAM.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 07:28:25 +0200, 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.

And to most of us it is.

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.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

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.