most of eastern Massachussetts airspace closed in July

"Christopher C. Stacy" wrote in message
...
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.

There are typically a handful of Angel Flights per month to or from BOS, a
smaller number to or from BED, and seldom any to or from the other nearby
airports. (The flights are listed on the Angel Flight web site, but the list
is only accessible to Angel Flight members.)

--Gary

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 22:05:10 GMT, Gary Drescher ("Gary") writes:

Gary "Christopher C. Stacy" wrote in message
Gary ...
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.
Gary
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,
Gary 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.

Gary There are typically a handful of Angel Flights per month to or from BOS, a
Gary smaller number to or from BED, and seldom any to or from the other nearby
Gary airports. (The flights are listed on the Angel Flight web site, but the list
Gary is only accessible to Angel Flight members.)

So the original poster would seem to be entirely correct,
not even considering other similar organization's flights.

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:

The only real question is whether the poster is correct that there
are lots of Angel flights out the affected airports.

I am a very active pilot of Angel Flight Northeast. During any given
week there are about 25 to 30 flights into and out of Boston's Logan.

--
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 =---

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:46:18 GMT, (Christopher C.
Stacy) wrote:

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?

1. Emergency medical flights are not included in the restriction.
2. Angel Flight is presently negotiating with Homeland Security.

So while what you post "may" come to pass, I don't see it as necessarily
set in stone as yet.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron Rosenfeld ) wrote:

2. Angel Flight is presently negotiating with Homeland Security.

Interesting. I was thinking about this last night and it seems to me that
it would be rather easy for the Angel Flight office to provide mission
information well ahead of time to pass some type of verification process.
Hopefully, das Homeland Security will also arrive at the same conclusion.


--
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 =---

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 06:55:34 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld ("Ron") writes:

Ron On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:46:18 GMT, (Christopher C.
Ron Stacy) wrote:

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,

Ron 1. Emergency medical flights are not included in the restriction.
Ron 2. Angel Flight is presently negotiating with Homeland Security.

Ron So while what you post "may" come to pass,
Ron I don't see it as necessarily set in stone as yet.

By the way, where are you getting your inside information about the
negotiations for the Angel Flights from? The other person who wrote
about it is one of their active pilots, and he wasn't aware.

Nobody raised the issue of "emergency medical flights" until you did
just now. Does it say that in the TFR? Last I heard on the day I
posted, the FAA was still writing the TFR and it had not been published.
Angel Flights are not usually emergency "Lifeguard" flights are they?
If you mean to suggest that since emergency medical flights will be
allowed, perhaps Angel Flight (hospital transport charity services)
will be able to negotiate an exception also, that certainly does
sound reasonable to me.

But the whole point here is that the government doesn't seem to be
behaving in a generallg reasonable manner in this situation, so far.
I have to wonder why they would allow those Angel Flights, and yet not
allow the three news/traffic helicopter flights, which also seem quite
reasonable. The helicopter flights represent a much more secure situation
than the Angel Flights: the pilots and aircraft are more well known, the
traffic flight schedules are known in advance, and the aircraft can be
secured and inspected more easily. According to the news reports,
these news/traffic guys have also been negotiating for permission to fly,
but they didn't think there was any chance of them winning.
And since it is clearly in the public interest for them to fly,
that's specifically what I was writing about.

"Christopher C. Stacy" wrote:


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.

The general principles of airspace and ground restrictions are the result of
an imperfect government trying to protect against a certain future terrorist
attack. We have lost some of our freedoms as a nation because of 911. And,
standby, it will only get worse.

Having said that, I think news helicopters are a hazard to persons and
property on the ground, terrorists aside. They push and shove for advantage
and take risks that police helicopters would never take. The police and
medical helicopters serve the public interest. The newsies create a hazard
using the First Amendment as a shield.

Two summers ago there was a major structural.brush fire near my home. At one
point there where 8, count them, 8 newsie 'copters hovering out of ground
effect, over or near my home. I walked uptown for a beer until the jerks
left.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 06:44:05 -0700, wrote:

Two summers ago there was a major structural.brush fire near my home. At one
point there where 8, count them, 8 newsie 'copters hovering out of ground
effect, over or near my home. I walked uptown for a beer until the jerks
left.


Boy you musta got REAL drunk if you waited until they all left!g

z

zatatime wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 06:44:05 -0700, wrote:

Two summers ago there was a major structural.brush fire near my home. At one
point there where 8, count them, 8 newsie 'copters hovering out of ground
effect, over or near my home. I walked uptown for a beer until the jerks
left.

Boy you musta got REAL drunk if you waited until they all left!g

z

Naw. They all left once the building were gone, and resumed their coverage of
freeway pursuits. ;-)

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.

Hey, Jay, want to host a convention?

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I think I have a new personal rule: Never watch anything which includes
the author's name in the title, particularly if the author is dead.
-- Andrew Dalgleish