If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane in NYC is a Cirrus SR20
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
... The video he http://www.emailthis.clickability.co...0316119&p t=Y or if that link doesn't work for you, the video at the link labeled 'New York crash location' located on the lower left corner of this page: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/11/plane.crash/index.html , indicates the flight descended from 1,500' to 400' during a 180 degree turn. He couldn't have been at 1500' there without busting Class B. He flew up the river at 700': http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/nyregion/13crash.html I find it difficult to believe, that a pilot intent on compliance with regulations would intentionally descend into the 'canyon' of buildings prior to attempting a 180 degree turn there. What's the regulatory difficulty? --Gary |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane in NYC is a Cirrus SR20
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:06:57 -0400, Gary Drescher wrote:
I've long wondered about whether "congested area" applies when one is over a river. That's not congested. It is next to a congested area, but it itself is rather sparsely populated. I've wondered about that too. But If it were construed to apply when you're over a river, then flight up the Hudson VFR corridor would be illegal--you can't get over the Verrazano or George Washington bridge under the Class E ceiling without coming within 2000' horizontally of the bridge towers, flying less than 1000' above the tower tops. So you're suggesting that, even if the river weren't congested, the bridges are? That's not a point I'd considered. What an overused term to not have a strict definition. - Andrew |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane in NYC is a Cirrus SR20
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:06:57 -0400, Gary Drescher wrote: I've long wondered about whether "congested area" applies when one is over a river. That's not congested. It is next to a congested area, but it itself is rather sparsely populated. I've wondered about that too. But If it were construed to apply when you're over a river, then flight up the Hudson VFR corridor would be illegal--you can't get over the Verrazano or George Washington bridge under the Class E ceiling without coming within 2000' horizontally of the bridge towers, flying less than 1000' above the tower tops. So you're suggesting that, even if the river weren't congested, the bridges are? That's not a point I'd considered. No, just the opposite--my point is that the river (including the bridge) is not regarded as a congested area, or overflying the bridges in the VFR corridor would be illegal (which obviously is not how it's construed). Having to stay 500' from structures, though, applies everywhere. What an overused term to not have a strict definition. Yup. --Gary |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Trip report: Cirrus SR-22 demo flight | Jose | Piloting | 13 | September 22nd 06 11:08 PM |
Cirrus demo | Dan Luke | Piloting | 12 | December 4th 05 05:26 AM |
Parachute fails to save SR-22 | Capt.Doug | Piloting | 72 | February 10th 05 05:14 AM |
Looking for Cessna Caravan pilots | [email protected] | Owning | 9 | April 1st 04 02:54 AM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |