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

Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2006-10-14, Emily wrote:
Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2006-10-13, wrote:
snip

You also have to remember, certainly in the US - many pilots simply
illegally fly over the cities (not being able to even remotely meet
14 CFR 91.119 (a)).
How does flying over a city violate that FAR?

Because, in a single engine aircraft, if the engine stopped a forced
landing could not be made without causing undue hazard to people or
property on the ground - just like the regulation says.

Is that really true, though? I've never flown over New York, but I have
flown over other large cities, and it's definitely
possible to fly high enough to land if necessary without endangering anyone.

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.

Greg Farris wrote:

In article ,
says...


Stefano wrote:
snip
We have got only one building in the center worth to be called
skyscraper. Not long ago someone managed to punch a hole right in the
middle of it with a Rockwell Commander.

Just curious, what was the cause?

IIRC the guy had just lost some sort of business deal with a Swiss Banker,
and was feeling a bit down - so he decided to make the world a worse place
to live in for all those left behind...

http://www.corriere.it/av/galleria.html?pirellone&1

The inquiry reached the conclusion that suicide was not the probable cause,
though psychical conditions of the pilot could have played a role in the
incident. The flight was poorly planned from the beginning, NOTAMs were
ignored and even in radio communications the pilot showed mental confusion.
In the last part of the flight bound to linate city airport he reported
landing gear problems. While messing with the operating manual and circuit
breakers, flying facing the sun, he lost altitude and situation awareness,
crashing with the building. A witness reported he was trying to turn at
maximum power when collision happened. There were two other casualties on
ground and damage to the building was significant. People still believe it
was suicide beacause hitting the skyscraper by chance was deemed
impossible.

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
Is that really true, though? I've never flown over New York, but I have
flown over other large cities, and it's definitely possible to fly high
enough to land if necessary without endangering anyone.

Most large cities I'm familiar with have a river (or larger body of water)
that you can ditch into if there's nothing more suitable.

--Gary

Mxsmanic,

It used to be forbidden to overfly Paris.


Bull. Provide the NOTAM.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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.

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

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

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:40:25 -0500, Emily
wrote:

Ron Natalie wrote:
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.

I guess I haven't been paying much attention. When I stopped paying
attention, it wasn't allowed.

That was only for about three months as I recall. You can now and
have been able to for some time, fly over most of DC VFR, but you are
in an ADIZ which means talking to ATC.


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

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:04:47 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote:

On 2006-10-14, Emily wrote:
You're doing it again. I'm well aware of what the FAR states, I'm just
unclear as to how flying over a city violates it. I've routinely flown
over Chicago, never less than the required MSA and always with a landing
site in mind.

In many places, there are no forced landing sites which do not cause
undue hazard to people or property on the ground. I'm very familiar with
Houston (the last big city I lived in), and the I-10 corridor was a
popular VFR route across the city between the two class B surface areas
(which, during the day, if you weren't actually going to HOU or IAH, you
weren't going to get clearance to transit).

There are only a few places in that highly congested area which
constitute a place where you can land without causing undue hazard to
people or property - and then, generally only in an aircraft that can
land easily in a small amount of space. People flew it all the time in
hot singles which the only place they could realistically put down would
be I-10 itself - which certainly is causing undue hazards to those on
the ground. 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

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.


land in some of the patches of wasteland in the I-10 corridor without
causing an undue hazard.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:50:03 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

A [the] minimum altitude must be high enough to allow you to
maneuver and land safely if the engine fails and never lower
than 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle/building within
2,000 feet laterally.

Of course, if you're in the NYC corridor, you're not over the city
itself but the river... I'd imagine that the people who planned the
corridor were considering the river itself "sparsely populated", so
you only need to be 500' *away* from people or structures on the
surface, not necessarily over.
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For every new foolproof invention there is a new and improved fool.