AS/MEL now need ATC permission over East River

In article ,
"Gary Drescher" wrote:

If that's the reason, then they should make a class b clearance a
requirement
for fixed-wing aircraft operating in that corridor.

Perhaps exceptions can be made at the controller's discretion (for example,
in the case of a slower plane with a small turning radius).

Why ATC? Why shouldn't the responsibility be on the PIC?

Bottomline: rules/regulations should say what they want. Regulation by
hoping and hinting almost always fails and have unintended adverse
side-effects.

Why deny the controller some reasonable flexibility in this situation?

I'm not. I'm questioning the reasoning behind the rule. I'm looking
for a logical justification for the rule and hoping that the rule it isn't
just a knee-jerk reaction.

And why deny the PIC his responsibility in this situation?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate