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

Front page of Yahoo right now, followed by, "A tragic small plane crash
brings to light a surprising fact."

It's truly saddening that everyone seems to be resorting to
anti-GA-speak. Why would a plane NOT be able to fly over New York? Was
there a rule I wasn't aware of? Does New York have a way of traffic
reporting that doesn't involved aircraft? Do they not allow helicopters
into downtown hospitals? I have no problem with the media reporting the
facts, but this makes me angry.

It is a fact that the media has always distorted the facts to generate
revenue.
If it wasn't over-sensationalized no one would bother watching.
The company I work for had a plane crash many years ago in the Midwest
and the media took off and ran whatever they wanted to say with total
disregard
for the family members of some of the crash victims.
It was then that I lost total respect for the media and since then I have
never
intentionally sat down to watch the news.
Living in Florida for most of my life I found that they (media) are also
directly responsible
for most of the persons that choose not to leave the area when a hurricane
is approaching,
due in part to the "cry wolf syndrome" created by them.

So enjoy your life and don't pay them too much attention.

David - KGYH




"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
Front page of Yahoo right now, followed by, "A tragic small plane crash
brings to light a surprising fact."

It's truly saddening that everyone seems to be resorting to anti-GA-speak.
Why would a plane NOT be able to fly over New York? Was there a rule I
wasn't aware of? Does New York have a way of traffic reporting that
doesn't involved aircraft? Do they not allow helicopters into downtown
hospitals? I have no problem with the media reporting the facts, but this
makes me angry.

FLAV8R wrote:
It is a fact that the media has always distorted the facts to generate
revenue.
If it wasn't over-sensationalized no one would bother watching.
The company I work for had a plane crash many years ago in the Midwest
and the media took off and ran whatever they wanted to say with total
disregard
for the family members of some of the crash victims.
It was then that I lost total respect for the media and since then I have
never
intentionally sat down to watch the news.
Living in Florida for most of my life I found that they (media) are also
directly responsible
for most of the persons that choose not to leave the area when a hurricane
is approaching,
due in part to the "cry wolf syndrome" created by them.

So enjoy your life and don't pay them too much attention.

David - KGYH

But it's not just the media who are both ignorant and indignant at the
same time...

The bile that is being spewed by politicians is equally toxic but it
has the potential to do far more damage than what the press
prints/airs.

And so long as politicians pander for votes via the media, they are (in
most people's minds) indivisible.

By themselves, the press decrying GA will not bring forth an ADIZ over
NYC, but politicians decrying GA *By Way Of* the media could.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

Emily writes:

Front page of Yahoo right now, followed by, "A tragic small plane crash
brings to light a surprising fact."

It's truly saddening that everyone seems to be resorting to
anti-GA-speak. Why would a plane NOT be able to fly over New York? Was
there a rule I wasn't aware of? Does New York have a way of traffic
reporting that doesn't involved aircraft? Do they not allow helicopters
into downtown hospitals? I have no problem with the media reporting the
facts, but this makes me angry.

For most people, airplane + New York = terrorists. In fact, for most
people, airplane anywhere = danger. Although people are willing to
fly to travel to different places, they generally don't want aircraft
flying around their neighborhood. The usual NIMBY syndrome, plus a
general distrust of aviation.

Remember, pilots are a tiny minority of society. The rest of society
sees nothing positive about general aviation, and would just as soon
forbid it entirely.

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

Just to add to the fun, the New York Daily News (which used to be a
decent paper) has as its headline -- in big bold letters: "IT FELT LIKE
SEPT. 11TH." Please! I was in the Trade Center, lost many friends, and
was right across the street when the first tower started to collapse.
If I do go around crying "SEPTEMBER 11" every time something goes
wrong, I don't think these uptown wussies should, either.

AJ

"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

On 12 Oct 2006 21:14:15 -0700, "AJ" wrote:

Just to add to the fun, the New York Daily News (which used to be a
decent paper) has as its headline -- in big bold letters: "IT FELT LIKE
SEPT. 11TH." Please! I was in the Trade Center, lost many friends, and
was right across the street when the first tower started to collapse.
If I do go around crying "SEPTEMBER 11" every time something goes
wrong, I don't think these uptown wussies should, either.

A new phrase to replace the old standard, "It was like a war zone!"

RK Henry

"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

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

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.