Here we go, new flight restrictions, NYC

[wsuffa]

FDC 6/3495 ZNY EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, VFR
FLIGHT OPERATIONS INVOLVING FIXED WING AIRCRAFT (EXCLUDING AMPHIBIOUS FIXED WING AIRCRAFT LANDING OR DEPARTING NEW YORK SKYPORTS INC SEAPLANE BASE) IN THE EAST RIVER CLASS B EXCLUSION AREA EXTENDING FROM THE SOUTHWESTERN TIP OF GOVERNORS ISLAND TO THE NORTH TIP OF ROOSEVELT ISLAND, ARE PROHIBITED UNLESS AUTHORIZED AND BEING CONTROLLED BY ATC. TO OBTAIN AUTHORIZATION CONTACT LGA ATCT SOUTH OF GOVERNORS ISLAND ON 126.05.

-------------------------
The corridor really doesn't start until somewhere NE of Governor's Island. It is no longer possible to sightsee the south tip of Manhattan, and it appears that you have to dip down to 1100 to avoid EWR airspace.

I'm betting it's a matter of time before the Hudson corridor is shut.

 

[tonycondon]

i dunno bill, from the sounds of things, flying the east corridor in a non seaplane really isnt the smartest idea anyway. i think there is a reason that it was mostly seaplanes and helicopters before the accident

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

It's their way of saying that amphibions will eventually rule...

 

[SCCutler]

From the shape of the East River corridor, it appears flying there in something without floats, rotors or a very low speed with tight turning radius might be considered a poor choice.

 

[poadeleted20]

It isn't shut -- you just have to talk to them. No biggie.

 

[wsuffa]

I don't disagree. And having lived in NY for a while, worked in the City, this was a difficult corridor. It was originally intended for seaplanes and copters.

However, I do think the extention to the SW corner of Governor's Island is a significant extension. I also think the way it was done & presented gives Pataki and Daley good reason to insist on expansion of the restriction to the Hudson corridor and to Chicago.

Personally, while I could justify this as a limited remedy (albeit without comment), I can see it easily be extended to other areas.

 

[4CornerFlyer]

The lions must be fed, and it is highly unlikely that we get out of this crash without having to toss them some meat.

In practical purposes, the east river restrictions in the NOTAM will not affect many pilots at all. It exempts seaplanes and non-fixed wing aircraft, and there just aren't that many people who fly up to a dead end without talking to ATC anyway.

The Hudson is another matter. Will the complainers be satisfied with the restrictions on the east river? Frankly, I'm amazed the Hudson even re-opened after 9/11. I flew it in August of 2001, and thought that would be my last time. Let's hope this trivial "bone" is enough.

Jon

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I agree with the sentiment- not much of a restriction in practical terms, and the FAA is just codifying what should be common sense.

My concern is the "camel's nose under the tent" effect. I think the reason the NYC area is being kept open is all the truly rich people (Trump, Forbes) and corporations (Dow Jones) that fly helicopters into NYC to avoid the ground traffic and that may be our best hope against further restrictions in that area.

 

[ApacheBob]

Still, it's another limitation. Boo. Hiss.
ApacheBob

 

[Anthony]

Death by 1,000 cuts.

 

[4CornerFlyer]

I too fear the "camel's nose," but the FAA could have done a lot more damage. The scope of this TFR is very narrow. They could have closed the east river corridor entirely without ATC control, but worded the TFR in such a way that it affects very few aircraft. There is nothing that affects the more-trafficked Hudson at all.
I think the fact that it could have been so much worse is a good sign. Maybe I'm a sucker.
Jon

 

[mikea]

I don't disagree. And having lived in NY for a while, worked in the City, this was a difficult corridor. It was originally intended for seaplanes and copters.

However, I do think the extention to the SW corner of Governor's Island is a significant extension. I also think the way it was done & presented gives Pataki and Daley good reason to insist on expansion of the restriction to the Hudson corridor and to Chicago.

Personally, while I could justify this as a limited remedy (albeit without comment), I can see it easily be extended to other areas.

Daley doesn't have the same case except for his "How can they fly over the city!" rant which isn't happening anyway, any more than it happens over Manhattan. There is a difference in the Class B shelf over downtown Chicago is 1900 or 2500 feet so there's room to fly VFR without talking to anyone, ironically thanks to Daley emptying the tower at Meigs.

The Chicago lakefront route is over 50 nm wide. It isn't quite the same problem with the waterway being narrow, not that logic ever applies.

As Bruce says this is a case where they had to make a rule to explain that doing otherwise is poor judgement. Many laws begin with the actions of an idiot and we never seem to run out of idiots.

 

[Eamon]

The corridor really doesn't start until somewhere NE of Governor's Island. It is no longer possible to sightsee the south tip of Manhattan, and it appears that you have to dip down to 1100 to avoid EWR airspace.

I'm betting it's a matter of time before the Hudson corridor is shut.

I think is should start at the Brooklyn or Manhatten Bridge. Other than that it seems reasonable.

The funny thing I see is that with the wording you can still fly fly to the Manhatten bridge and maybe even the Willeys as long as you stay over Brooklyn or Mahnatten & are not over the river. The airspace above each is still 1500 ft.

 

[poadeleted20]

Flew through NY TRACON airspace today, and asked the controller how the new "contact ATC to fly the East River corridor" deal was working. He said it's easy -- nobody is being cleared.

 

[wsuffa]

Flew through NY TRACON airspace today, and asked the controller how the new "contact ATC to fly the East River corridor" deal was working. He said it's easy -- nobody is being cleared.

Not surprised... for a number of reasons.

 

[bbchien]

Flew through NY TRACON airspace today, and asked the controller how the new "contact ATC to fly the East River corridor" deal was working. He said it's easy -- nobody is being cleared.

why am I not surprised?

 

[infotango]

Flew through NY TRACON airspace today, and asked the controller how the new "contact ATC to fly the East River corridor" deal was working. He said it's easy -- nobody is being cleared.

I saw 172 fly over at 1000 on the east river this afternoon.

 

[Frank Browne]

Flew through NY TRACON airspace today, and asked the controller how the new "contact ATC to fly the East River corridor" deal was working. He said it's easy -- nobody is being cleared.

I'm not surprised either, but one question though. Were A/c getting clearences through the Bravo from the East River corridor prior to the Lidle crash, and if so, why none now? Is this some politico's way of getting the corridor closed?

 

[Henning]

FDC 6/3495 ZNY EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, VFR
FLIGHT OPERATIONS INVOLVING FIXED WING AIRCRAFT (EXCLUDING AMPHIBIOUS FIXED WING AIRCRAFT LANDING OR DEPARTING NEW YORK SKYPORTS INC SEAPLANE BASE) IN THE EAST RIVER CLASS B EXCLUSION AREA EXTENDING FROM THE SOUTHWESTERN TIP OF GOVERNORS ISLAND TO THE NORTH TIP OF ROOSEVELT ISLAND, ARE PROHIBITED UNLESS AUTHORIZED AND BEING CONTROLLED BY ATC. TO OBTAIN AUTHORIZATION CONTACT LGA ATCT SOUTH OF GOVERNORS ISLAND ON 126.05.

-------------------------

Doesn't sound over reactionary at all to me. It sounds just like "Don't use this blow dryer in the shower" warning that's now required to protect the stupid from themselves. It doesn't even sound like they've totally denied access to anyone, they just want you to call to make sure you have a plan and to issue you some instructions.

 

[Richard]

Doesn't sound over reactionary at all to me. It sounds just like "Don't use this blow dryer in the shower" warning that's now required to protect the stupid from themselves. It doesn't even sound like they've totally denied access to anyone, they just want you to call to make sure you have a plan and to issue you some instructions.

So when ATC decides to blow off very VFR request the desired result is achieved although without being stated. How duplicitous that is.

 

[Henning]

So when ATC decides to blow off very VFR request the desired result is achieved although without being stated. How duplicitous that is.

Doesn't really matter. You're reading into the situation what you haven't seen happen. How paranoid is that? Fact, if two GA pilots hadn't entered that slot without a clue or a plan, they wouldn't have had to write it as they did. GA f***ed it up, you can't go bitchin at the Feds for writing this one, especially when what they wrote is sensible and moderate still allowing open access to the people who really need it. From what they wrote, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt in this matter until they prove differently.

 

[SkyHog]

I hate seeing new restrictions, and when I first got the alert from CNN saying the corridor was closed, I was ****ed.

But now, after letting it settle, this was a much less restrictive restriction than it could have been. At least it was just the East River corridor, and at least it was just to non-seaplanes/helicopters. Imagine if the response would have been a "temporary" ADIZ over NYC again.

 

[poadeleted20]

I got an email back from Phil Boyer, who said, "Let's give this a little time and revisit the numbers. This was a little used area by transient GA anyhow ... and it's the HUDSON CORRIDOR we all need to protect." And, as usual, he's right.

 

[Henning]

I got an email back from Phil Boyer, who said, "Let's give this a little time and revisit the numbers. This was a little used area by transient GA anyhow ... and it's the HUDSON CORRIDOR we all need to protect." And, as usual, he's right.

That is exactly correct. It's the Hudson corridor that provides benefit to many. The East River corridor was really a special use notch for working aircraft, and they got to keep it as well.

 

[Richard]

Okay, I admit I have very little familiarity with that area yet when I hear of new restrictions, regardless of who instigated it, I get a bit perturbed.

The fact that the East River was little used by GA is irrelevent, the space should be open to GA. PIC is responsible for flight safety not regulatory oversight.

EX: Flying in Class G above 14,500 in mtn terrain. We know it depends upon the wx, the pilot, and his craft. But no matter, it falls to the PIC as it rightly should.

 

[poadeleted20]

PIC is responsible for flight safety not regulatory oversight.

If PIC's were so good about living up to that responsibility, there would be a lot less regulatory oversight. As always, this new restriction is the result of something going wrong. Can't say yet exactly what went wrong, but had this not happened, the restriction wouldn't be there now.

 

[Richard]

If PIC's were so good about living up to that responsibility, there would be a lot less regulatory oversight. As always, this new restriction is the result of something going wrong. Can't say yet exactly what went wrong, but had this not happened, the restriction wouldn't be there now.

Who can argue that pilots are not living up to that? Although the problem I have is that such regulation is often poorly executed. F'rinstance, I could rent a Ryder truck, park it in front of a building, and walk away. How many years has it been since OK City? But one guy smacks a building and we become even further restricted? One day later the rules are tightened. Why does one guy screwing up so heavily affect the rest of us?

I'm one of the subscribers to the "death by a thousand cuts" way of thinking.

EDIT: I can hear the question already. "How are you affected by this? My answer is my perception is that everyone is running scared that this is another nail in the coffin. I guess I shouldn't be surprised to wake up one day to find that GA is banned. And the supporting evidence -- assuming that is required -- would be continued pilot error of SOME pilots. It seems policy makers are finding it ever easier to make policy changes without oversight.

 

[Anthony]

Who can argue that pilots are not living up to that? Although the problem I have is that such regulation is often poorly executed. F'rinstance, I could rent a Ryder truck, park it in front of a building, and walk away. How many years has it been since OK City? But one guy smacks a building and we become even further restricted? One day later the rules are tightened. Why does one guy screwing up so heavily affect the rest of us?

I'm one of the subscribers to the "death by a thousand cuts" way of thinking.

I totally agree.

Ron, its sounds like you are a proponent of only commercial pilots flying. I agree we need to do better, but I shouldn't have my privileges revoked becuase of this guy's mistake.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron, its sounds like you are a proponent of only commercial pilots flying.

I never said that, or at least, never meant that. The issue is whether pilots fulfill the responsibilities of their certificates, whatver type/level they hold.

I agree we need to do better, but I shouldn't have my privileges revoked becuase of this guy's mistake.

I can't speak to "should," but whether we like it or not, the reality is that when one of us screws up, the rest of us pay. There are two things that flow from that:

1. We cannot give less than our best effort at all times.
2. We cannot tolerate among us anyone who does not.

Failure to adhere to these two standards will result in continued increases in restrictions and decreases in priviliges. That's a fact, not an opinion.

 

[bbchien]

If PIC's were so good about living up to that responsibility, there would be a lot less regulatory oversight. ...had this not happened, the restriction wouldn't be there now.

Ain't it the truth. You can scream about Ryder trucks all you want, but it's a shill.

We need to control, ground, discourage, educate, remediate, whatever the bottom feeders in our midst. If we don't, we'll just get more regulation. Very unpopular for me to say this, but those who posted vehemently they would "fight this intrusion on our rights" fail to see that we have no rights. I don't see it in the constitution anyplace.

Hayder "Jim" Lowery Schea_er, who never admitted to anyone that he did anything wrong, is a student pilot again. May god save the rest of GA. Maybe Darwin is saving us too, in a backhanded kinda way.

I can't speak to "should," but whether we like it or not, the reality is that when one of us screws up, the rest of us pay. There are two things that flow from that:

1. We cannot give less than our best effort at all times.
2. We cannot tolerate among us anyone who does not.

And indeed it our obligation to NOT tolerate it, nor to aid nor abet, nor give shelter, nor assistance to it.

Failure to adhere to these two standards will result in continued increases in restrictions and decreases in priviliges. That's a fact, not an opinion.

Indeed that is.

Some here think they can "fight" this encroachment. But I don't see that they've had any success reversing the ADIZ nor this new, albeit small restriction. When they do, I may reconsider.

 

[Henning]

Okay, I admit I have very little familiarity with that area yet when I hear of new restrictions, regardless of who instigated it, I get a bit perturbed.

The fact that the East River was little used by GA is irrelevent, the space should be open to GA. PIC is responsible for flight safety not regulatory oversight.

If only all PICs were up to the challenge.... Truth be told, our regulations are written in blood. Our regulations and restrictions were written and developed reactively to deaths directly related, and often large death toll accidents, or high profile. In the US, we can't really lay this at the governments feet, we have to shoulder the responsabilities ourselves. If you take your single seat aircraft, or anyother for that matter and kill yourself out in the boonies, no one will care, no will will call for regulation. When planes collide around major airports and 300+ people die at a whack, we get TCA's. When it happens enough thru out the world, we get Class B airspace.

We can't go on complaining about regulation while still screwing up. Over 4000 busts to the DC ADIZ, what does that say about the competence level of GA? People fly freaking airplanes into the side of buildings accidentally when they even had a parachute they could have pulled to save themselves, what does that say about the competence level of GA?

No no, we gotta quit this whining and take ownership of our situation, because GA bought and paid for it...in blood. The sooner we do so, the sooner the blood stops and the regulation can halt it's progress.

 

[Henning]

Who can argue that pilots are not living up to that? Although the problem I have is that such regulation is often poorly executed...

BUT... in this case it's not. In this case, they got it dead right on and reasonable. Rather than complaining about it, I think we owe the FAA a stream of e-mails congradulating them and thanking them for taking a reasonable and just course of action in this matter. It could have been much worse, and there are some who will still try to have that happen. If we let them know that we are watching, and we are reasonable people, it makes it harder for them to ignore our voices as "They Who Cannot Be Pleased". We have to show we have an HONEST dog in this hunt and that we have reasonable expectations about our duty to the perceptions of society as a whole. Remember people fear GA because of the mistakes we do make. When we show the FAA that we accept that as a truth and are trying to regulate it in the ranks and industry, we will get more leeway.