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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
most of eastern Massachussetts airspace closed in July
The Democratic National Convention is coming to Boston in July.
The Boston Globe today reported that the FAA is going to restrict all air traffic within 30 nm of Boston: no private aircraft will be allowed to operate in the airspace. The main thrust of the story was that this restriction included all the helicopters used by the traffic reporting services and television news. You see, ground traffic is being restricted into Boston as well, including all the major roads and highways being closed in all directions for dozens of miles around, the public transit system being shut down in many places, and the mayor and other officials basically saying, "Boston is closed this week, all businesses should shut down and everyone please just stay out of the city." They even have some stupid advertising slogan about it. It's something of a scandal. I don't want to get into the truly amazing political and other implications of them effectively closing down all business and normal life in the whole metro area, but mention this here only for background because it's relevent to the airspace story. Nothing like this has ever been done here, and all the road closings and traffic re-routing to go around Boston is going to be a terrible mess. In particular, the airborne traffic reporters are upset that they won't be able to view either the city or even the highway (Route 128, our beltway on the western side of the suburbs) because it's inside the restricted airspace. This highway is how people will drive in order to bypass the Boston area, and it's way far away from the city, near the 30 nm limit. But with these flight restrictions, there will be nobody in the air even to do traffic reports, and this is going to maximize the difficulty and confusion of the insane ground transportation situation. The news stations of course are upset that they won't be allowed to take pictures of the convention from the air, for example protesters outside the convention hall. (Hopefully there won't be any other important news happening anywhere in the Boston metro area that week, either.) (The article implied that scheduled passenger airliners would still be operating into BOS. Good luck to the poor travelers once they get on the ground. But like I said, that's another story.) While the FAA has not finalized the airspace restrictions, the state government and convention organizers have already said they don't think they will be able to make any exemptions for the news and traffic copters. Obviously they fear a terrorist air attack on Boston during the convention, delivered by a small aircraft. (I don't imagine they're afraid of someone crashing a helicopter into a building or anything trivial like that. The problem would be a bio or dirty weapon on a small plane, which they would be unable to effectively intercept.) One could wonder about a lot of elements and aspects of these flight restrictions. I am sure a lot of the answers would boil down to a lack of security resources that might enable more flexible solutions. We could also speculate and fear how these kinds of restructions could represent a harbinger of the destruction of our country and freedom. But let's leave all that alone. I'll just confine myself to asking: Why for heaven's sake do you suppose they can't make an exemption and let those helicopters in? There are only three or four such helicopters for the whole city, and it's not like we don't know them. These particular aircraft, which clearly serve the public interest in this situation, could easily be secured and inspected before each takeoff. It seems overboard, over-paranoid, and counterproductive. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I'll just confine myself to asking: Why for heaven's sake do you suppose they can't make an exemption and let those [traffic and news] helicopters in? I for one hope that they do not. It is the only way the general public will see the damage that is being done by airspace restrictions. Make exceptions like this and we will see TFRs become routine, because the public simply won't notice and won't care. Jose -- (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Christopher C. Stacy" wrote in message
... The Democratic National Convention is coming to Boston in July. The Boston Globe today reported that the FAA is going to restrict all air traffic within 30 nm of Boston: no private aircraft will be allowed to operate in the airspace. The main thrust of the story was that this restriction included all the helicopters used by the traffic reporting services and television news. You see, ground traffic is being restricted into Boston as well, including all the major roads and highways being closed in all directions for dozens of miles around, On the bright side, at least they're not ignoring our oft-stated objection that ground traffic constitutes as much of a threat as GA traffic. --Gary |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Christopher C. Stacy" wrote in message ... The Democratic National Convention is coming to Boston in July. The Boston Globe today reported that the FAA is going to restrict all air traffic within 30 nm of Boston: no private aircraft will be allowed to operate in the airspace. The main thrust of the story was that this restriction included all the helicopters used by the traffic reporting services and television news. You see, ground traffic is being restricted into Boston as well, including all the major roads and highways being closed in all directions for dozens of miles around, the public transit system being shut down in many places, and the mayor and other officials basically saying, "Boston is closed this week, all businesses should shut down and everyone please just stay out of the city." They even have some stupid advertising slogan about it. It's something of a scandal. I don't want to get into the truly amazing political and other implications of them effectively closing down all business and normal life in the whole metro area, but mention this here only for background because it's relevent to the airspace story. Nothing like this has ever been done here, and all the road closings and traffic re-routing to go around Boston is going to be a terrible mess. In particular, the airborne traffic reporters are upset that they won't be able to view either the city or even the highway (Route 128, our beltway on the western side of the suburbs) because it's inside the restricted airspace. This highway is how people will drive in order to bypass the Boston area, and it's way far away from the city, near the 30 nm limit. But with these flight restrictions, there will be nobody in the air even to do traffic reports, and this is going to maximize the difficulty and confusion of the insane ground transportation situation. The news stations of course are upset that they won't be allowed to take pictures of the convention from the air, for example protesters outside the convention hall. (Hopefully there won't be any other important news happening anywhere in the Boston metro area that week, either.) (The article implied that scheduled passenger airliners would still be operating into BOS. Good luck to the poor travelers once they get on the ground. But like I said, that's another story.) While the FAA has not finalized the airspace restrictions, the state government and convention organizers have already said they don't think they will be able to make any exemptions for the news and traffic copters. Obviously they fear a terrorist air attack on Boston during the convention, delivered by a small aircraft. (I don't imagine they're afraid of someone crashing a helicopter into a building or anything trivial like that. The problem would be a bio or dirty weapon on a small plane, which they would be unable to effectively intercept.) One could wonder about a lot of elements and aspects of these flight restrictions. I am sure a lot of the answers would boil down to a lack of security resources that might enable more flexible solutions. We could also speculate and fear how these kinds of restructions could represent a harbinger of the destruction of our country and freedom. But let's leave all that alone. I'll just confine myself to asking: Why for heaven's sake do you suppose they can't make an exemption and let those helicopters in? There are only three or four such helicopters for the whole city, and it's not like we don't know them. These particular aircraft, which clearly serve the public interest in this situation, could easily be secured and inspected before each takeoff. It seems overboard, over-paranoid, and counterproductive. It's a "forest and trees" problem. The terrorist have been successful -- they have (or will) gum up our traffic, cause untold inconvenience, financial damage, shut down general aviation, etc. What were seeing is a PSYOP attack that plays on our fears and worst nightmares. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"William W. Plummer" wrote in message news:0VgAc.68849$Sw.11654@attbi_s51... The terrorist have been successful -- Yeh. Successful because of crappy security at WHICH airport? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Christopher C. Stacy ) wrote:
The Boston Globe today reported that the FAA is going to restrict all air traffic within 30 nm of Boston: no private aircraft will be allowed to operate in the airspace. snip This will shut down all Angel Flights into and out of Boston's Logan Airport, a very common destination for children with severe burns, cancer survivors, and organ transplant recipients. I'll bet these individuals and their families will be happy to hear this. -- Peter ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:25:42 -0400, Peter R.
wrote: Christopher C. Stacy ) wrote: The Boston Globe today reported that the FAA is going to restrict all air traffic within 30 nm of Boston: no private aircraft will be allowed to operate in the airspace. snip This will shut down all Angel Flights into and out of Boston's Logan Airport, a very common destination for children with severe burns, cancer survivors, and organ transplant recipients. I'll bet these individuals and their families will be happy to hear this. I'd rather see an exception for those than a media helicopter any day of the week! z |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:25:42 -0400, Peter R.
wrote: This will shut down all Angel Flights into and out of Boston's Logan Airport, a very common destination for children with severe burns, cancer survivors, and organ transplant recipients. How do you know that? Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:02:14 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld ("Ron") writes:
Ron On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:25:42 -0400, Peter R. Ron wrote: This will shut down all Angel Flights into and out of Boston's Logan Airport, a very common destination for children with severe burns, cancer survivors, and organ transplant recipients. Ron How do you know that? Because those are GA flights, which will definitely be banned from BOS, according to the information we have from the Boston newspapers and what's been posted here from the FAA web site. The only real question is whether the poster is correct that there are lots of Angel flights out the affected airports. Boston is in fact a national destination for medical care and research hospitals, so that claim seems plausible on the face of it. The remaining detail would then be about which Boston airport, and how the TFR will treat the close-in major reliever airports like BED/OWD/LGA, if the flights would be using those instead. Do you have some reason to believe that it's not true? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Must the PLANE be IFR-equipped to fly over17,500? | john smith | Home Built | 11 | August 27th 04 02:29 AM |
AOPA Sells-Out California Pilots in Military Airspace Grab? | Larry Dighera | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | April 26th 04 06:12 PM |