Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
LostInSpace

Flagrant loophole

Recommended Posts

I'm sure by now most of you have heard about Cory Lidle. I'll tell you, people were very over reacting to this at first calling it a terrorist attack and the market reacted to this as well. Anyway, I digress. The main purpose of this post is to discuss a loophole that came to light to the public and myself yesterday. Also, let me add a very sad day for his family and all that but:

quote:

There are corridors to either side of Manhattan that allow pilots of small planes to fly at low altitude without a flight plan. They work outside the direct supervision of air traffic controllers on visual flight rules. Governor George Pataki says those rules need to change.

What the hell do you call that? The government really amazes me sometimes more than usual at times like this time. They also need to keep these noob pilots away from the city. If not for pedestrian safety but the safety of newer pilots.

quote:

Lidle earned his pilot's license last off-season and purchased the plane. In August, Lidle said of his new hobby, "It's risky, but no more risky than driving a car.

He actually obtained his license in Feb of this year and he's only had this particular plane two months ago. I'm sorry but there is just not enough experience there to allow anyone near our skyline. Jeez, it's bad enough with ground based vehicle traffic now we gotta worry about what's going around above us.

[ 10-12-2006, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: LostInSpace ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LIS,

Don't forget that he was one of your Bronx Bombers. Maybe he was just shopping around for a new apartment and didn't want to be bothered with doing it like everyone else. From the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Grayfox

lol well if you got the cash, the upper east side is the place to go.

i was listening to cnn and espn the day this happened and two things came to my attention.

1) they said the plane he bought was a little "racy" and might be a bit too much for a new pilot. they likened it to learning to drive in a ferrari (sp)

2) the VFR ends halfway up the east river creating an airspace "deadend" meaning that he would half to do a u turn and head back the way he came.

some of the newsies were saying that when he fipped his u turn that perhaps the plane got away from him and he plowed into the 50th floor... the apartment was probably worth more than the plane.

and before he was a bronx bomber, he was a fightin phillie!

but when i saw cnn yesterday talking about the loophole LIS is mentioning, i almost tossed the tv out the window... ya lets just announce that loophole to the world and give every tango with a hard on ideas...media...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Wolferz:

LIS,

Don't forget that he was one of your Bronx Bombers. Maybe he was just shopping around for a new apartment and didn't want to be bothered with doing it like everyone else. From the ground.

Them sports figures think they can do anything they want.

You know, when the news first broke and everyone was running and hiding screaming terroists, I was thinking the opposite. Just didn't seem like a terror attack. Too small and insignificant and there was nothing special about the date except for it being one month past 9/11. I was first thinking it was another divorce preceeding. Look at what that doctor did to his swanky brown stone building because of a divorce. Then when it was announced that there were at least two people on board, I was then thinking it was a husband and wife and she was nagging the crap out of him.

quote:

Originally posted by Grayfox:

lol well if you got the cash, the upper east side is the place to go.

i was listening to cnn and espn the day this happened and two things came to my attention.

1) they said the plane he bought was a little "racy" and might be a bit too much for a new pilot. they likened it to learning to drive in a ferrari (sp)

2) the VFR ends halfway up the east river creating an airspace "deadend" meaning that he would half to do a u turn and head back the way he came.

some of the newsies were saying that when he fipped his u turn that perhaps the plane got away from him and he plowed into the 50th floor... the apartment was probably worth more than the plane.

and before he was a bronx bomber, he was a fightin phillie!

but when i saw cnn yesterday talking about the loophole LIS is mentioning, i almost tossed the tv out the window... ya lets just announce that loophole to the world and give every tango with a hard on ideas...media...

Yeah, go out in style. Anyway, that's pretty much the concensus around here is that he was turning to go back the other way. Being a noob, he more than likely didn't take into account drift from the wind. I know for a fact that that area can be very windy even on a calm day.

You know what'll make you madder is why that loophole is there in the first place. Lobbyists and politicians. NY has more restrictions on smokers than these hobby pilots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NEW YORK (AP) -- Fixed-wing planes have been banned from the East River corridor in New York unless the pilot is in contact with air traffic control, the Federal Aviation Administration said Friday.

I smell a cover up.

quote:

New York Gov. George Pataki and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, had asked the FAA on Thursday to require anyone flying near Manhattan to be under the supervision of air traffic controllers.

"A smart terrorist could load up a small, little plane with biological, chemical or even nuclear material and fly up the Hudson or East rivers, no questions asked," said Schumer.

The senator said the Lidle crash should be "a wake-up call to the FAA to re-examine flight patterns, which, amazingly enough, they haven't done since 9/11." The date refers to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack when two airliners were flown into the World Trade Center.

Rememeber what I said about lobbyists and politicians. I also haven't heard a peep out of our dear Sen. Clinton. Everyone is probably too busy shredding evidence. I conclude this because there hasn't been an outcry from all the politicians you'd expect to be kicking up a storm over this loophole in NY's air traffic. In fact, it's been downright too quite. I'll have to see if I can dig up that article I saw about the lobbyists.

quote:

The FAA, though, said it changed the rule because of safety rather than security considerations.

"You get some real strange winds going through those canyons of buildings," said Bill Waldock, aviation safety professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University at Prescott, Arizona.

"It's a weird area to try to maneuver airplanes in anyway," Waldock said.

I beat this guy to the punch. I'm not a pilot and even I knew that. I don't think I need some "expert" from arizona to tell me about my own winds where I live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Grayfox

lol embry riddle... thats where the rocket scientists are.

and ya theyre gonna rush and cover up what they can now cause the loophole has been discovered by the media

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What loophole are you talking about? There is no loopholes.

He got his license, he bought a plane, and he was flying it with a CFI (CERTIFIED FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR). Somehow everyone just seems to ignore the fact taht during this ACCIDENT, there was an actual experienced, FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR at the controls with this private pilot.

As far as VFR corridors go, they are just that, VFR corridors. They are designed to route VFR traffic (aircraft flying under visual flight rules) through designated area. It reduced congestion in the overall area, and reduced the workload on ATC so that it can actually dedicate attention to where it's needed, instead of spending time yaking to a guy flying along a designated corridor.

How is required ATC contact going to prevent a terrorist attack? EVERY aircraft flying in that area is already UNDER RADAR CONTACT. There's absolutly NOTHING an ATC controller can do to prevent a terrorist from doing anything, just by being in radio contact with him.

All it is are some idiots who have zero knowledge in aviation, voicing their interpretations on how things should be. These talking idiots, talking, spitting and trying to design Aviation Regulations are akin to a guy with no mechanical skills, telling an actual mechanic how to fix his car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was an accident. Simple as that. He was flying that low, becaues the corridor SPECIFIES that he stay under 1,200 feet. It's TOTALLY fine when you are flying right above the water, which he was doing. That's EXACTLY what this corridor is designed for. Low flying traffic over the water. It all went awry when he got over land. He broke the rules already IN PLACE, and he paid the ultimate price for it. There's no new rules nor regulations needed, as there's nothing that will stop a terrorist from breaking them all to cause death and damage.

This is the same as the laws that prohibit normal law abiding citizens from owning firearms, while the criminals go right ahead, get firears and commit crimes with them on those same law abiding citizens. The politicians who have no knowledge in aviation writing laws for us aviators to follow will not do anything to protect this nation from an internal terrorist attack. All it will do is hinder normal law abiding pilots, cause more congestion in already high traffic areas, cause bussiness/taxes and revenue loss, ect....

So stop all this silly panicking till you familiarize yourself with aviation and gain some knowledge on this area, and not from the "facts" that are portrayed on the news.

PS, how many fatal accidents are there on the US roads and freeways? The ratio is hundreds of times higher than aviation accidents (even if you count the non fatal ones). If you are going to use the analogy that "the plane he got was a little 'racy', it's like just getting your drivers license and jumping into a ferrari", then why don't you say something like "When people get their drivers license, they shouldn't be allowed to drive anything but a 1970's VW bug with less that 100 horsepower, AND push your politicians to scream "US roads are not secure, any terrorist could get a drivers license and drive a truck loaded with "explosives, biological, or nuclear" material into a building. That is by far a more realistic scenario. Instead, they all keep quite, while illegals without insurance are driving all over US, causing traffic, accidents, deaths, and all kinds of damage. The politicians are all hush, and people are like sheep "all is quite, then all is well" LOL, wait till a small plane that weights less than a Ford 150 crashes and kill the two pilots on board, and we have a panic that the sky is falling down.

ROFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Grayfox

quote:

So stop all this silly panicking till you familiarize yourself with aviation and gain some knowledge on this area, and not from the "facts" that are portrayed on the news.


lmao its not panicking, and since when do you do crosscountry flights for southwest airlines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Grayfox

and if there was a CERTIFIED INSTRUCTOR (caps) in the plane, wtf was he doing? taking a nap? im sorry but if the vfr corridor specifies flying under 1200 and im flying in an area heavily populated with bldgs, im flying at 1190 ft...

and yes atc has everyone in vfr under radar surveillance, however flying vfr you are under the "anarchy" rule... you see something, you avoid it. you dont have the luxury of chatting it up with atc like the ifr boys do. i believe thats the question being asked. why is vfr like that? the textbook answer is to relieve congestion in the skies and relieve the atc folks of an additional burden.

that said however,theres literally nothing to stop some towel head from loading up a twin beech, or some other sturdy twin prop craft, with whatever, taking off on a vfr (dont need to file a flight plan here) and plowing into a bldg. im just curious as to why it has to be like this...

vfr is the wild wild west of aviation. every man for himself lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, VFR is by far not the wild west of aviation.

VFR stands for "Visual Flight Rules". RULES stands for

"An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct, especially one of the regulations governing procedure in a legislative body or a regulation observed by the players in a game, sport, or contest. "

That being said, it's far from everyone doing their own thing. It starts from as simple as what altitude you will fly at depending on which direction you are traveling in, to something as complex as those VFR corridors and airspace regulations.

Also, the fact that there was a certified instructor with him, and an accident happened. It REINFORCES the notion that whatever happened wasnt just because this guy was a low time pilot, because obviously even the flight instructor couldn't save them.

What would prevent a terrorist from filing a flight plan, taking off, then flying into a building anyway. You do know that ALL the aircraft involved in 9/11 attacks were flying under IFR, were in ATC contact, and had IFR flight plans on file. Well, maybe you didn't.

Oh, and one more thing, a Beechcraft Baron weighs a maximum of 5,524 lbs. http://www.raytheonaircraft.com/beechcraft...ifications.aspx By comparison a Ford 150, the smallest weighs 6,500 pounds (not counting what it could tow), to 8,200 lbs (bigger engine/hp etc...). Do your math on what would be simpler and cause more damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Grayfox

quote:

What would prevent a terrorist from filing a flight plan, taking off, then flying into a building anyway. You do know that ALL the aircraft involved in 9/11 attacks were flying under IFR, were in ATC contact, and had IFR flight plans on file. Well, maybe you didn't

you missed the point entirely. ill try and say it in words of one syllable or less so you can understand. im not talking about IFR im talking about VFR... PAY ATTENTION!

VFR flight rules are established by the Federal Aviation Administration, the FAA. Generally speaking, with the exception of certain controlled airspace restrictions, you can do, within reason, what you want to do.(read last post about wild wild west) To fly VFR, a flight plan, with a few exceptions, is not required.

comprende? verstehensie? here ill drop the website so you can read to your hearts content VFR flight rules

ill post another excerpt from the site about VFR rules

quote:

DO YOU HAVE TO FILE A FLIGHT PLAN?

No. There are exceptions, like if you intend to penetrate the "defense zones" that cover the ocean approaches to the U.S., but for all intents and purposes a flight plan is not required. The prime value of having a flight plan on file is that if you don't make it to your destination, your odds of having people go out looking for you are increased. However, VFR flight plans can be vastly over-rated. Quite frankly, unless you fail to show up at your destination, they don't mean much. And, there is a long period between the time you give as your ETA, and the launch of a search and rescue.


and another

quote:

WHY FLY VFR?

In one word, "freedom". Freedom because you can go when you want to, where you want to and how you want to, taking into account whatever airspace restrictions may be in your flight path.

In four words, "you may have to". If you don't have an instrument rating, you don't have a choice- you fly your trips VFR.


again i hope im making myself clear.

now back to what i was talking about. YES i know the flights on 9/11 were flying IFR. i havent seen a commercial jet NOT fly IFR, that is a moot point. what i was talking about is getting a piston popper flying VFR where NO FLIGHT PLAN, WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS, IS REQUIRED packing it with junk and wrecking it into a bldg or large gathering of people, or hitting a bridge packed with rush hour traffic. can you understand that? do i need to be more specific? im talking VFR... VFR VFR VFR VFR not IFR

quote:

Oh, and one more thing, a Beechcraft Baron weighs a maximum of 5,524 lbs.

ah naturally you go for the lowest common denominator... all the beechcraft ive ever worked on were generally of the kingair or larger type Beechcraft Kingair the maximum takeoff weight is 12,500 pounds. empty operating weight (instrumentation, fuel, and one pilot @ 200 pounds) is about 8,500 pounds... now if YOU can do the math thats 4,000 pounds of crap that can be stuffed in there. again am i making myself clear? do you understand what im getting at about the whole VFR thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Grayfox

frickin post edit time expired...

now as to your obsession with vehicles, you have to look at the terror aspect. over here in america, which form has the biggest terror impact on the people? car bombs? or aircraft? when was the last time a car bomb was set off within US borders? (OK city) when was the last time an aircraft was used?(9/11) what stirkes the most fear in the hearts of americans? over in the middle east its an entirely different story. id be scared shitless of every car that passed by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Grayfox

ARGH! again with the edit time lol. i need to correct myself on one point. the kingair (the one i picture when i think of a beechcraft) is a turboprop not a piston popper. with the G58 the difference in BOW and max weight is almost 1500 pounds... just take out all the seats and pack 1500 pounds of stuff in there... the f150 has a 3000 pound payload cap, but again i point to my above post... which has the bigger psychological effect on the american populace?

im not meaning to be obstinate about all this, im just trying to point out that there is a problem with the way VFR are run. i have a problem with someone being able to pack his/her plane with whatever they want, takeoff without so much as an f/u to anyone, and fly pretty much wherever they want and whenever they want with evil intent... it just bugs the crap out of me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, you need to get an idea who you are talking to here.

I am a pilot, and know a lot more about Federal Aviation Regulations than you can begin to even understand, and you quoting me a little paragraph that is not even from the book, means nothing.

VFR is NOT a loophole. What those idiots are proposing is to make Visual Flight Rules to be more like Instrument Flight Rules, where you have to file a flight plan and be in constant contact with ATC. So it would make no sense to change VFR rules for the sake of preventing terrorist attacks, or preventing accidents. Like I aldready said, those guys weren't following the regulations already in place, by flying too low over LAND (they were supposed to stay over water), the regulations ALREADY in place for VFR prevent things like this from happening. THAT is why I mentioned IFR. A terrorist could as well file IFR, BE in constant communications with ATC, BE under radar contact, he can violate every single rule, and STILL cause damage.

However, the thing is, you can't cause much damage with a piston plane. Even if you load it up with explosives, a piston engine aircraft doesn't have the penetration force necessary, nor does it have much payload. THAT is why I am telling you about a truck. Have you already forgotten how after 9/11, some dumb kid crashed a Cessna 172 into an office building. Do you remember the results of that? The office was barely damaged, let alone anything done to the building.

So, I am not going to educate you on FAR's or on aircraft performance in this post. What I am telling you, as a professional pilot, is the crap that everyone keeps talking about, like imposing some idiotic regulations for aircraft operating under VFR will do zilch to prevent terrorists from doing what they want to do. Nor will it prevent accidents like this, because not only is this an accident, it happened why the pilots DISREGARDED the regualations already in place, so imposing any additional beurocratic bull is not going to prevent anything, it will only make it harder for pilots without adding any safety margin. Also, a light piston twin barely has the power to lift 3 people, to lift 4 it will have to trade the weight of the 4th one by not taking on fuel, so the notion of causing any substantial damage with it is laughable.

All this talk does is highlight the ignorance of the people who open their mouth (especially the politicians) and put forth the ideas that imerged from their jumbled brains without a centilla of knowledge on the subject.

[ 10-19-2006, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

quote:

Originally posted by Grayfox:

that said however,theres literally nothing to stop some towel head from loading up a twin beech, or some other sturdy twin prop craft, with whatever, taking off on a vfr (dont need to file a flight plan here) and plowing into a bldg. im just curious as to why it has to be like this...

Thank goodness there aren't hundreds of Ryder Trucks and Uhauls driving in and out of Manhattan every day... oh wait...

The fact is that you can't fit 1/100 of the explosive power in a small plane than you could in the type of truck that was used to bring down the Murrah building in OKC.

All of this poo-poohing about 'terror in the skies' is fear-induced hysteria that ignores the far greater threats of open borders, Dubai Ports World on our ports, and Ryder trucks in the streets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Grayfox

ok point conceded. ill listen if im gettin yelled at from 2 sides at least youre not throwing vulgarities around

quote:

All of this poo-poohing about 'terror in the skies' is fear-induced hysteria

thats what i mean by the psychological effect. thanks to 9-11, people arent going to look at an airplane the same way. me personally, i couldnt care less. if its more than a 4 hour drive im flying. but you get people into a grp and the mass hysteria thing kicks in. almost makes me want to try it as an experiment now... get a decent sized grp of people and talk about this subject and see if i cant get them to start panicking

hmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×