Flight restrictions after Lidle crash to be permanent

[BrianNC]

Didn't see this anywhere. Just delete if it's a duplicate.
____________________________

...After the accident, the Federal Aviation Administration temporarily ordered small, fixed wing planes not to fly over the river, which runs along Manhattan's East Side, unless the pilot would be in contact with air traffic controllers.

According to the NTSB documents, the Federal Aviation Administration on Dec. 12 "indicated that they would be proceeding with a rulemaking action to make the restrictions ... permanently effective."


The restriction remains in place, an FAA spokesman said Monday, but could not immediately confirm that the agency plans to make the rule permanent.


Small planes could previously fly below 1,100 feet along the river without filing flight plans or checking in with air traffic control. Lidle's plane had flown between 500 and 700 feet above the river.



More...
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2755154

[mastermags]

Lame FAA... real lame.

[JaceTheAce]

"Pilots, remember that the FAA is on your side." PUHLEEEEEEEEEASE.

[frog_flyer]

As long as I can fly along the river in contact with ATC FOR FREE, I'm not going to bitch too much.

[JEP]

I doubt that being in contact would have done anything. I am sure they were aware they were in trouble. ATC telling them that would not have helped.

[SteveC]

My understanding is that they got in trouble, partially, because they tried to make the turn in that narrow river rather than climb into ATC's airspace. This requirement should eliminate that problem, and as far as I can see doesn't really place any more burden on pilots. From what I've read, very few fixed wing aircraft used that VFR corridor because it is so narrow and it dead ends into controlled airspace, so I don't quite understand the objections. It doesn't apply to the aircraft that use that airspace the most (helicopters), and by requiring fixed wing to talk to ATC it should relieve those pilots of feeling trapped by the controlled airspace above and ahead of them if they get into a predicament like Lidle did. To me, at least on first read, it looks like a pretty intelligent response to a sad situation.

[tonyw]

I don't know if it will do any good. I guess it won't do any harm.

In the current paranoid environment, I guess that's as good as you can hope for.

[towhook]

I think the rule is fine. It always sucks to see more rules being made, but this one doesn't really matter to most. You can still get a great view of NYC from the Hudson, and anyone with business (floatplane or helo) can still operate in the East River like normal.

For the most part this rule is to just pacify the masses. I actually feel like the FAA is on our side by not making a broader ruling about the entire Hudson River corridor. Unless you have flown up the river you really can't appreciate how close to downtown NYC you can still get. Thank God for that.

[BrianNC]

Originally Posted by towhook

I think the rule is fine. It always sucks to see more rules being made, but this one doesn't really matter to most. You can still get a great view of NYC from the Hudson, and anyone with business (floatplane or helo) can still operate in the East River like normal.

For the most part this rule is to just pacify the masses. I actually feel like the FAA is on our side by not making a broader ruling about the entire Hudson River corridor. Unless you have flown up the river you really can't appreciate how close to downtown NYC you can still get. Thank God for that.

It's not really about this ruling being fine. As with any encroachment on the rights of pilots (or anyone's rights for that matter), whether this particular one is any big deal or not, it is just one more step toward more restrictive policies toward pilots. The next one will be easier, the next one after that even easier, until GA is not allowed to fly the rivers at all.

From that perspective, the rule is NOT fine. You have to look at the bigger picture.

[Van_Hoolio]

Originally Posted by BrianNC

It's not really about this ruling being fine. As with any encroachment on the rights of pilots (or anyone's rights for that matter), whether this particular one is any big deal or not, it is just one more step toward more restrictive policies toward pilots. The next one will be easier, the next one after that even easier, until GA is not allowed to fly the rivers at all.

From that perspective, the rule is NOT fine. You have to look at the bigger picture.

I'm sorry but I disagree. The East River route was borderline unsafe. The FAA isn't taking away our right to fly over the East River, they are just saying we have to be in contact with ATC if we do. Pick a nice day with La Guardia landing the right way and there you go. I was only foolish enough to fly the Hudson once without a Bravo clearance, and every time I flew it afterward (about 4-5 times in the last year) I was ALWAYS given a Bravo clearance and the controllers were always very nice and accomodating. A lot of GA pilots need to nut up and use the ATC system instead of cower in fear of it. Same goes for the NAS.

Mike

[WestIndian425]

Originally Posted by Van_Hoolio

I'm sorry but I disagree. The East River route was borderline unsafe. The FAA isn't taking away our right to fly over the East River, they are just saying we have to be in contact with ATC if we do. Pick a nice day with La Guardia landing the right way and there you go. I was only foolish enough to fly the Hudson once without a Bravo clearance, and every time I flew it afterward (about 4-5 times in the last year) I was ALWAYS given a Bravo clearance and the controllers were always very nice and accomodating. A lot of GA pilots need to nut up and use the ATC system instead of cower in fear of it. Same goes for the NAS.

Mike

I'm with Mike here. The only concern I can see coming up would be the potential for controller overload with the amount of traffic in that airspace alone. Other than that, I'm perfectly fine with it.

[BrianNC]

Originally Posted by WestIndian425

I'm with Mike here. The only concern I can see coming up would be the potential for controller overload with the amount of traffic in that airspace alone. Other than that, I'm perfectly fine with it.

I don't disagee in an of itself it is a bad thing. But when you look at the bigger picture it is. This is how all restriction starts. This one in and of itself may be totally innocent. But it is just the beggining of a slow erosion of rights that you have no idea where it may end up.

[Van_Hoolio]

Originally Posted by BrianNC

I don't disagee in an of itself it is a bad thing. But when you look at the bigger picture it is. This is how all restriction starts. This one in and of itself may be totally innocent. But it is just the beggining of a slow erosion of rights that you have no idea where it may end up.

Oh come on! The airspace over the East River ought to be in the surface area of LGA's class Bravo and that should be the end of it. Instead, they had excluded the East River for our benefit. The FAA threw GA a bone on that one. Now, they've decided that the cooridor is not safe for certain types of aircraft and I agree with them. GA pilots can still fly it in seaplanes and helos without squawking and talking to ATC. GA Pilots in fixed wing aircraft can fly it too, but it is best if they have a Bravo clearance so they can safely manuever out of the cooridor. Hence the new rule.

How can you say the new rule is the beginning of an erosion of rights? It's for safety! Sometimes AOPA blows too much smoke up people's asses.

Mike

[BrianNC]

Originally Posted by Van_Hoolio

Oh come on! The airspace over the East River ought to be in the surface area of LGA's class Bravo and that should be the end of it. Instead, they had excluded the East River for our benefit. The FAA threw GA a bone on that one. Now, they've decided that the cooridor is not safe for certain types of aircraft and I agree with them. GA pilots can still fly it in seaplanes and helos without squawking and talking to ATC. GA Pilots in fixed wing aircraft can fly it too, but it is best if they have a Bravo clearance so they can safely manuever out of the cooridor. Hence the new rule.

How can you say the new rule is the beginning of an erosion of rights? It's for safety! Sometimes AOPA blows too much smoke up people's asses.

Mike

I'm not saying it is fur sure, it's just that you never know. So best to fight it and not let it happen in the first place. Too late now.

[Van_Hoolio]

Originally Posted by BrianNC

I'm not saying it is fur sure, it's just that you never know. So best to fight it and not let it happen in the first place. Too late now.

Fight a rule that improves safety for pilots!? No thank you.

[BrianNC]

Originally Posted by Van_Hoolio

Fight a rule that improves safety for pilots!? No thank you.

So how would have him being in contact with ATC prevented him from making a turn he didn't have room to make?

[ComplexHiAv8r]

Originally Posted by BrianNC

So how would have him being in contact with ATC prevented him from making a turn he didn't have room to make?

He would of been cleared to climb above the skyline to make the turn.

[BrianNC]

Originally Posted by ComplexHiAv8r

He would of been cleared to climb above the skyline to make the turn.

The point is he thought he could make that turn otherwise it was a suicide. So being in contact with ATC does not mean he would have requested a climb. Not to mention, either way it is still moot to my original point.

[Van_Hoolio]

Originally Posted by BrianNC

The point is he thought he could make that turn otherwise it was a suicide. So being in contact with ATC does not mean he would have requested a climb. Not to mention, either way it is still moot to my original point.

The point is that the Lidle aircraft made the turn not because they thought they could, but because they thought they HAD to to stay out of the Bravo airspace. I find your original point irrational. I, for one, am glad the FAA sets policy that makes the skies safer for pilots. I do not see rulemaking like this as an encroachment on my rights as a pilot because I know I am still able to tour the East River if I want to.

Hopefully this rule will prevent another tragedy like the Lidle crash. Pilots will no longer be able to put themselves into the same situation. The FARs are written in blood, right?

Mike

[towhook]

Lidle died because he was stupid. There is no excuse for flying into a building in a working a/c in VFR conditions. Period. Climb, bust airspace, turn into the wind, slow down before the turn, ditch in the river... whatever it takes not to hit a building!

This past fall I spent about 100 hours flying banners over the Hudson and East River at 1000 ft. I would say that only about 50% of the GA a/c on the river have it together enough to be there. I feel bad for the helo pilots and float pilots who have to work there for a living and deal with some of the guys coming up and down. I do support the right to fly the corridor by everyone, but also have a realistic view of the space constraints of the East River. Have you done a 180 north of the 5-9?

I am looking at the big picture. Do you realize how many people were screaming about a/c on the river after that accident? Everyone was shocked that you could fly so close to downtown NY. Look at DC - I was terrified that was going to happen to NYC. What a relief to find that the helos and floats could operate as usual, and that the Hudson suffered no rule change.

[Flying Ninja]

I agree with towhook. Lidle was an idiot. I've taken a bunch of people up and down the Hudson and did the course reversal and demonstrated how tight you can make a course reversal turn. Every person that I did this demonstration is baffled as to how this simple course reversal could lead to an airplane vs. building disaster. Lidle and/or his CFI either:

1. lost their situational awareness
2. have no skills
3. felt that concrete was more penetrable than invisible airspace lines on their nice Avidyne glass avionics.
4. all of the above

I'm thinking #4 personally. I'm sorry that the FAA is making that TFR a permanent one. No more flying over those pretty bridges on the east side.

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by Flying Ninja

I'm sorry that the FAA is making that TFR a permanent one. No more flying over those pretty bridges on the east side.

As I understand it they are not restricting flights up the east side in fixed wing aircraft, just requiring that you be talking to ATC. Not quite the same thing.

[Ian J]

Lidle died because he was stupid

Lidle was an idiot

We could have a little respect for the dead... no one knows exactly what happened in the cockpit.

Monday morning quarterback away, but those two guys are DEAD. Not living. Gone.

[towhook]

Originally Posted by ChinookDriver

We could have a little respect for the dead... no one knows exactly what happened in the cockpit.

Monday morning quarterback away, but those two guys are DEAD. Not living. Gone.

Why does someone earn respect just because they die?

[ComplexHiAv8r]

Originally Posted by towhook

Why does someone earn respect just because they die?

As we don't even know WHO was flying at the time, I think both deserve respect. We need to learn from this, which I think some have.