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

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.

Helicopters [and Helio Couriers] can land in very small
areas, a faster airplane might need a big empty parking lot.


"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
| 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?

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?

Greg Farris wrote:
In article ,
says...
.
The center of Berlin is a restricted area after an ultralight pilot
commited suicide with his plane on the lawn in front of what amounts to
the German version of the House of Congress. The f***ing self-centered
idiot...



I agree. That was my first (admittedly self-centered) thought when I
learned about 9/11 - before it was understood what was going on.

Heh. That was my first though as well.

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.

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.

Andrew Gideon writes:

What irks me is that people so quickly decide that small and large
airplanes should be treated differently, to the disfavor of small
airplanes.

That's because the average person's only interest in aviation is as
transportation, via commercial airline flights. Big airplanes are
needed for commercial airline flights; small airplanes are not.
Therefore most people are perfectly willing to outlaw small aircraft
entirely, because such a ban has no effect on them; whereas they make
an exception for large aircraft, because they need large aircraft for
their own occasional airline travel.

Those cowards on the news claim shock that a small airplane
can fly overhead when those small airplanes had nothing to do with the
2001/09 attack.

Yet mention the idea that large aircraft should be kept 30 miles away, and
nobody seems to like that idea...despite that idea being consistent with
their claimed fears.

It's irrational.

You don't need an aircraft to transport bombs or weapons, as Oklahoma
City proved, so all the fears are irrational.

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

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...

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"FLAV8R" wrote in message
...

It was then that I lost total respect for the media and since then I have
never intentionally sat down to watch the news.

If you haven't watched the news then it's pretty curious how you know so
much about what and how they present their news.

Recall the word "intentionally". Define the word "experience".

Small wonder the MSM industry is heading down the crapper -- credibility
damn near ZILCH, comprehension is the same. Post-modernist twits, the only
thing the MSM has in its tally is _arrogance_.

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
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...

Psychic, are we?

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.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

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
land in some of the patches of wasteland in the I-10 corridor without
causing an undue hazard.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de