![]() |
| 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
|
|||
|
|||
|
Paul Tomblin wrote: In a previous article, (Christopher C. Stacy) said: basically saying, "Boston is closed this week, all businesses should shut down and everyone please just stay out of the city." I can't wait to see what having the RNC convention in New York City is going to do to *that* city's traffic. I bet after this year, cities will stop competing for who gets to host the conventions, and starts telling them to hold the conventions in rural Iowa or something. As to "or something," how about somewhere in Iraq? |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
That FAA link specifically says that the special IFR arrival procedures are
due to the higher than normal anticipated volume of flights, it has nothing to do with security. "Jack Cunniff" wrote in message ... (Christopher C. Stacy) writes: 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. Way too much hand-wringing about this. It's not going to be a 30-mile TFR, it's a 10-mile one with procedures out to 30 miles. Logan will be closed to all but commercial traffic, yes. No GA, no "charters". I believe that certain charters (such as travel wholesalers who charter entire jets for scheduled service) will still operate. The IMPORTANT INFO that seemed to be missing from other postings, and from the Globe story was this link from the FAA, talking about how GA IFR flights were going to operate from airports within the 30-mile ring. http://www.faa.gov/NTAP/NTAP04JUN10/SP04023.htm It says: The Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Control System Command Center (ATCSCC), will utilize a Special Traffic Management Program (STMP) for this event. Slot reservations will be required for all domestic, non-scheduled IFR arrivals to the following airports during the date and times indicated: Laurence G. Hanscom Fld. BED Beverly Muni BVY Lawrence Muni LWM Norwood Mem OWD My opinion? The process will likely be very similar to what happened during the G8 Summit in Georgia. See http://www.faa.gov/Newsroom/Airspace...ntent=Affected for what the FAA said about operations during the G8. I imagine VFR ops at these four airports will be much like how things happened when the Boston airspace opened back up for VFR operations just after 9/11. One thing - because GA is excluded from Logan, these four airports are going to be much more crowded, as they're the new destinations for all the traffic banned from Logan. So - don't sweat it TOO MUCH if you're based within the 30-mile ring. -Jack Cunniff (at OWD) |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jeremy Lew wrote:
That FAA link specifically says that the special IFR arrival procedures are due to the higher than normal anticipated volume of flights, it has nothing to do with security. The URL http://www.faa.gov/NTAP/NTAP04JUN10/SP04023.htm indicates that special rules are in effect for IFR traffic. It says nothing about VFR traffic, as far as I can tell. That is, the information at that URL has no bearing on traffic reporting as such. Presumably, any VFR restrictions are described elsewhere. - Andrew |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:04:45 +0000 (UTC), Jack Cunniff ("Jack") writes:
Jack Logan will be closed to all but commercial traffic, yes. No GA I am specifically concerned with the traffic/news helicopter service. (I'm concerned about the larger issues, but am trying to draw a boundary around one specific aspect of the restriction that seems blatantly obviously detrimental to the public interest, regardless of national security or airman politics or anything.) On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:22:12 -0400, Jeremy Lew ("Jeremy") writes: Jeremy That FAA link specifically says that the special IFR arrival Jeremy procedures are due to the higher than normal anticipated Jeremy volume of flights, it has nothing to do with security. I think that's almost certainly bull****. I mean, is is that there are going to be so many more scheduled airliners coming in all week that they're going to be unable to avoid a couple of helicopters? Or is it the onrush of zillions of GA planes coming to fly over the city in order to view... nothing that's outside? And bear in mind that in order to begin to create the hypothetical problematic situation, all these mysterious random aircraft inundating the area from parts unknown would have to be ignoring the permanent class B Boston airspace. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
I assumed they meant that they expect a lot delegates to be
arriving/departing on GA flights. "Christopher C. Stacy" wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:04:45 +0000 (UTC), Jack Cunniff ("Jack") writes: Jack Logan will be closed to all but commercial traffic, yes. No GA I am specifically concerned with the traffic/news helicopter service. (I'm concerned about the larger issues, but am trying to draw a boundary around one specific aspect of the restriction that seems blatantly obviously detrimental to the public interest, regardless of national security or airman politics or anything.) On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:22:12 -0400, Jeremy Lew ("Jeremy") writes: Jeremy That FAA link specifically says that the special IFR arrival Jeremy procedures are due to the higher than normal anticipated Jeremy volume of flights, it has nothing to do with security. I think that's almost certainly bull****. I mean, is is that there are going to be so many more scheduled airliners coming in all week that they're going to be unable to avoid a couple of helicopters? Or is it the onrush of zillions of GA planes coming to fly over the city in order to view... nothing that's outside? And bear in mind that in order to begin to create the hypothetical problematic situation, all these mysterious random aircraft inundating the area from parts unknown would have to be ignoring the permanent class B Boston airspace. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:11:24 -0400, Jeremy Lew ("Jeremy") writes:
Jeremy I assumed they meant that they expect a lot delegates to be Jeremy arriving/departing on GA flights. So many that ATC and all the areas airports can't seperate them from exactly four helicopter aircraft within 30 nm of Boston? Besides, it seems more likely that most conventioneers will be arriving on scheduled airliners. (If they were going to use GA flights, they won't be able to do that now under the proposed TFR, so that makes no sense in addressing the motivation.) It's bull****, I tell you. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| 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 03:29 AM |
| AOPA Sells-Out California Pilots in Military Airspace Grab? | Larry Dighera | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | April 26th 04 07:12 PM |