Congress starts screwing with the National Airspace System

navydevildoc · 10-13-2006, 10:55 AM

No, No NO!!!

FAA reviews long-criticized Manhattan flight path - CNN.com

Can congress go ONE DAY without screwing something up? I don't see how they think having Lidle's plane talking to Air Traffic Controllers would have fixed anything. He would still have crashed! In fact, I would feel less safe if everyone is talking to ATC, that adds a significant amount of workload to the pilot.

They talk about loading a plane with chemical or biological weapons. First, these small GA planes can only carry so much weight. Second, a pickup truck (or delivery van for that matter) could drive right through manhattan and directly expose thousands of people from the ground rather anonymously. Why do it from a plane where people are already tracking your movement, and where you are far away from the population?

I suppose it's mid-term election time. I just hope the FAA is smart enough to make some noise about it then forget about it in a few months.

Baketech · 10-13-2006, 11:19 AM

Been following that, and hope that the FAA does a review and decides to leave it alone...

Fwiw, I think this is how the system is supposed to work...the people raise questions, and their representatives push them up the hill.

Hopefully though, their conclusion will not change the current restrictions...

sheepofblue · 10-13-2006, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by navydevildoc

No, No NO!!!

FAA reviews long-criticized Manhattan flight path - CNN.com

Can congress go ONE DAY without screwing something up? I don't see how they think having Lidle's plane talking to Air Traffic Controllers would have fixed anything. He would still have crashed! In fact, I would feel less safe if everyone is talking to ATC, that adds a significant amount of workload to the pilot.

They talk about loading a plane with chemical or biological weapons. First, these small GA planes can only carry so much weight. Second, a pickup truck (or delivery van for that matter) could drive right through manhattan and directly expose thousands of people from the ground rather anonymously. Why do it from a plane where people are already tracking your movement, and where you are far away from the population?

I suppose it's mid-term election time. I just hope the FAA is smart enough to make some noise about it then forget about it in a few months.

recess

luvtolean · 10-13-2006, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baketech

Been following that, and hope that the FAA does a review and decides to leave it alone...

Fwiw, I think this is how the system is supposed to work...the people raise questions, and their representatives push them up the hill.

Hopefully though, their conclusion will not change the current restrictions...

I totally agree with you...but at times you can't help but understand Hamilton when he said the masses are asses...

Baketech · 10-13-2006, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

...but at times you can't help but understand Hamilton when he said the masses are asses...

Yes, and it was far better than sending them lurid emails...

luvtolean · 10-13-2006, 11:32 AM

You been repped...

navydevildoc · 10-13-2006, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baketech

Been following that, and hope that the FAA does a review and decides to leave it alone...

Fwiw, I think this is how the system is supposed to work...the people raise questions, and their representatives push them up the hill.

Hopefully though, their conclusion will not change the current restrictions...

Yeah, you are right, this is how the system is supposed to work.

It's still frustrating.

Baketech · 10-13-2006, 11:40 AM

Totally... the situation falls into the "terrorists win" category if you ask me...

I hate to be insensitive, but the whole hubub over this crash seems rediculous. Yes it was a bad accident, but no worse than several truck/car crashes that happened during the same period...

This one just captured the imagination because it was a smoking building and a famous victim...

steingar · 10-13-2006, 12:30 PM

I'm a bit surprised it hasn't happened, as GA (general aviation) is such an easy target. Heck, even the (mostly) intelligent and articulate members of this board don't know very much about it, based on what I have seen in the past (no insult of any kind intended). Things you don't know about are vilified simply.

This accident illustrates to me just how safe a major city like New York is from GA aircraft. This is one of the worst accidents imaginable, a small fast aircraft (Cirrus are among the fastest) hitting a high-rise apartment building. Yet the damage consisted of a fire that was put out in 45 minutes and no casualties outside of the pilots. And believe me, the river corridors in New York are extremely difficult places to fly because there are a lot of airplanes and even more regulations.

The concern has been terrorists, but they can easily do their bit with cars and vans, and so far have stayed away from GA. That's not to say they couldn't, but I suspect they'll stick to more destructive means until their options run out, as GA aircraft are complex, take more training than ground vehicles, and are less destructive.

luvtolean · 10-13-2006, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steingar

I'm a bit surprised it hasn't happened, as GA (general aviation) is such an easy target. Heck, even the (mostly) intelligent and articulate members of this board don't know very much about it, based on what I have seen in the past (no insult of any kind intended). Things you don't know about are vilified simply.

You mean like guns.

navydevildoc · 10-13-2006, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steingar

I'm a bit surprised it hasn't happened, as GA (general aviation) is such an easy target. Heck, even the (mostly) intelligent and articulate members of this board don't know very much about it, based on what I have seen in the past (no insult of any kind intended). Things you don't know about are vilified simply.

The difference is twofold.

1) The average general aviation enthusiast is educated and has money. This equals power in Washington.

2) In this particular case, we have AOPA. They do an excellent job at fending off things like "permanent" TFRs, expanding ADIZs, ATC User Fees, and getting implementation of next-gen safety ehancing technologies like WAAS and the LPV approaches that go with them, ADS/B, LLWS detectors, etc, etc, etc. They also know the subject matter better than anyone else, and know how to make the case to Congress, the FAA, and NTSB to get things done.

steingar · 10-13-2006, 1:05 PM

Agree big time, which is why I continue my membership. I still think the New York VFR corridors are an endangered species. It is a pity; although I haven't had the chance to fly them yet I've heard that the view is spectacular. One accident in many years just doesn't sound that dangerous to me.

SomeStrangeGuy · 10-13-2006, 2:01 PM

I might be an outsider looking in here, but Im missing entirely how the communication to ATC from the "GA" folks is going to make the city safer.

navydevildoc · 10-13-2006, 2:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SomeStrangeGuy

I might be an outsider looking in here, but Im missing entirely how the communication to ATC from the "GA" folks is going to make the city safer.

It doesn't. In fact, it could be argued that it makes them less safe because of looking outside for other aircraft, they now have to pay attention to ATC, and in a crowded airspace environment such as NYC, that's a full-time job.

SomeStrangeGuy · 10-13-2006, 2:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by navydevildoc

It doesn't. In fact, it could be argued that it makes them less safe because of looking outside for other aircraft, they now have to pay attention to ATC, and in a crowded airspace environment such as NYC, that's a full-time job.

Thanks NDD, thats what I was thinking...isn't NY a busy enough place as is?

BDA116 · 10-13-2006, 2:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by navydevildoc

It doesn't. In fact, it could be argued that it makes them less safe because of looking outside for other aircraft, they now have to pay attention to ATC, and in a crowded airspace environment such as NYC, that's a full-time job.

Not to mention the extra load it would burden the already overloaded controllers with.

steingar · 10-13-2006, 3:28 PM

To be honest, I prefer to fly while talking to controllers, and would be happy to do so in the VFR corridors. Always nice to have that extra set of eyes. But it is a huge increase in their work-load, which will make the airspace considerably less safe, not more so.

I suspect that the "solution" to the mostly nonexistent problem will be to bureaucraticly close the VFR corridors. Again, one accident in many many years (I'm referring to GA only, and 911 was no accident) actually sounds pretty damn safe to me.

SomeStrangeGuy · 10-13-2006, 3:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steingar

To be honest, I prefer to fly while talking to controllers, and would be happy to do so in the VFR corridors. Always nice to have that extra set of eyes. But it is a huge increase in their work-load, which will make the airspace considerably less safe, not more so.

I suspect that the "solution" to the mostly nonexistent problem will be to bureaucraticly close the VFR corridors. Again, one accident in many many years (I'm referring to GA only, and 911 was no accident) actually sounds pretty damn safe to me.

I think the real solution is to ban planes flying anywhere near buildings.

steingar · 10-13-2006, 3:52 PM

You are correct, and it has already been done. No airplane is allowed to approach within 1000 feet above or 2000 feet horizontal to a structure.

ccwilli3 · 10-13-2006, 4:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SomeStrangeGuy

I think the real solution is to ban planes flying anywhere near buildings.

Dude. Nobody needs a plane at all. Outlaw all private airplanes and this isn't a problem?!

That's what airlines are for, to fly you places.

SomeStrangeGuy · 10-13-2006, 4:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steingar

You are correct, and it has already been done. No airplane is allowed to approach within 1000 feet above or 2000 feet horizontal to a structure.

Oh, that is good to hear. I figured some thing like that was in effect already but I didn't realize the extents of it, thanks.