Enough is enough
BY PHIL BOYER
Mayor Daley's latest rants have sent me over the edge. He used the accident in New York to once again demand a no-fly zone over downtown Chicago for general aviation aircraft.
It was expected, of course. He has an irrational hatred for piston-engine aircraft, as evidenced by his illogical tirade this week. "They should not jeopardize, through intentionally or by accident, a single- or two-engine plane flying over our city [sic]," the Meigs Field destroyer exploded at a press conference. (I don't think he was including Boeing 737s, 757s, and 767s in his list of twin-engine aircraft.) "Remember: a single- or two-engine plane can kill as many people as possible if they want to."
And if it were just Daley, I'd ignore his ravings, just as the folks in the federal government in charge of security and airspace do.
But it's not just him. Other politicians (with the spectacular and notable exception of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg) and self-appointed "experts" are jumping on the tragic accident — repeat, accident — in New York to sound off again about the "danger" of light aircraft, and how they must be regulated, restricted, banned.
OK, for all of those ranting about "threats" from GA aircraft, we'll believe that you're really serious about controlling "threats" when you call for:
Banning all vans within cities. A small panel van was used in the first World Trade Center attack. The bomb, which weighed 1,500 pounds, killed six and injured 1,042.
Banning all box trucks from cities. Timothy McVeigh's rented Ryder truck carried a 5,000-pound bomb that killed 168 in Oklahoma City.
Banning all semi-trailer trucks. They can carry bombs weighing more than 50,000 pounds.
Banning newspapers on subways. That's how the terrorists hid packages of sarin nerve gas in the Tokyo subway system. They killed 12.
Banning backpacks on all buses and subways. That's how the terrorists got the bombs into the London subway system. They killed 52.
Banning all cell phones on trains. That's how they detonated the bombs in backpacks placed on commuter trains in Madrid. They killed 191.
Banning all small pleasure boats on public waterways. That's how terrorists attacked the USS Cole, killing 17.
Banning all heavy or bulky clothing in all public places. That's how suicide bombers hide their murderous charges. Thousands killed.
Number of people killed by a terrorist attack using a GA aircraft? Zero.
Number of people injured by a terrorist attack using a GA aircraft? Zero.
Property damage from a terrorist attack using a GA aircraft? None.
So Mr. Mayor (and Mr. Governor, Ms. Senator, Mr. Congressman, and Mr. "Expert"), if you're truly serious about "protecting" the public, advocate all of the bans I've listed above. Using the "logic" you apply to general aviation aircraft, you're forced to conclude that newspapers, winter coats, cell phones, backpacks, trucks, and boats all pose much greater risks to the public.
So be consistent in your logic. If you are dead set on restricting a personal transportation system that carries more passengers than any single airline, reaches more American cities than all the airlines combined, provides employment for 1.3 million American citizens and $160 billion in business "to protect the public," then restrict or control every other transportation system that the terrorists have demonstrated they can use to kill.
If you're not willing to be consistent, then we might think that you're pandering to uninformed public fears, posturing from the soapbox of demagoguery, screaming security for your own political ends.
October 13, 2006
AOPAs Phill Boyer got it right
Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher
-
Tom Downey
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 4:50 am
AOPAs Phill Boyer got it right
Tom Downey A&P-IA
-
Bruce Fenstermacher
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:24 am
Daley
I agree with you Tom! We really don't need these crackpots dictating how we live our lives. A lot of the stuff we hear is just plain old politics. Each one trying to outdo the other and get the most press exposure to furthur their political careers without regard to the impact they may have on people's lives. 
OLE POKEY
170C
Director:
2012-2018
170C
Director:
2012-2018
-
Tom Downey
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 4:50 am
i may just do that,
send a copy to our
local paper and see if
they'll print it!!
beings we're in a small town
and this would be big news
they probably will.
dave
ps i remember taking my 1946 c-140
up over 10,000ft back in 79'
to get over the restricted airspace,
and had a great time flying over
o'hare, midway, meigs,
and of course down town chicago!!!
no body bothered me at all.
can one still do this?
dave
send a copy to our
local paper and see if
they'll print it!!
beings we're in a small town
and this would be big news
they probably will.
dave
ps i remember taking my 1946 c-140
up over 10,000ft back in 79'
to get over the restricted airspace,
and had a great time flying over
o'hare, midway, meigs,
and of course down town chicago!!!
no body bothered me at all.
can one still do this?
dave
1951 170A 1468D SN 20051
1942 L-4B 2764C USAAC 43-572 (9433)
AME #17747
-
Bruce Fenstermacher
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:24 am
Yes Thomas is correct a mode C transponder is required even by those aircraft that otherwise are exempt, while inside the 30 mile ring and at or over the ceiling of the class B airspace it surrounds.
On my initial reading of Tom's post I didn't realize where Boyer's comments started and ended and what was Tom's.
We should probably still vote Tom for President and perhaps Phil Boyer as VP or visa versa.
On the airspace itself some here may know I have about 2000 hours flying helicopters in and around Manhattan. There is not a place I haven't been. I'm VERY familiar with the airspace, it's inter workings and it's gotchas.
I've always thought the East River exclusion was a gotcha for an unsuspecting airplane pilot who hadn't studied the charts and realized it was exactly as others have described, a fairly narrow box canyon with a ceiling. I never envisioned an aircraft hitting a building though.
Under our current airspace system I don't know how we effectively would restrict an otherwise unrestricted airspace to certain types of aircraft i.e. rotor-craft and float planes would be allowed will others would require ATC contact. I personally would not go up the East River without first contacting LaGuardia tower.
If a restriction excluding helicopters and float-planes is somehow created over the East River I wouldn't be upset because it has always made sense to me.
On my initial reading of Tom's post I didn't realize where Boyer's comments started and ended and what was Tom's.
We should probably still vote Tom for President and perhaps Phil Boyer as VP or visa versa.
On the airspace itself some here may know I have about 2000 hours flying helicopters in and around Manhattan. There is not a place I haven't been. I'm VERY familiar with the airspace, it's inter workings and it's gotchas.
I've always thought the East River exclusion was a gotcha for an unsuspecting airplane pilot who hadn't studied the charts and realized it was exactly as others have described, a fairly narrow box canyon with a ceiling. I never envisioned an aircraft hitting a building though.
Under our current airspace system I don't know how we effectively would restrict an otherwise unrestricted airspace to certain types of aircraft i.e. rotor-craft and float planes would be allowed will others would require ATC contact. I personally would not go up the East River without first contacting LaGuardia tower.
If a restriction excluding helicopters and float-planes is somehow created over the East River I wouldn't be upset because it has always made sense to me.
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!
Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
-
cessna170bdriver
- Posts: 4063
- Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 5:13 pm
