This is insane. Why let any small plane fly near Manhattan? I mean, if we're going to make untold millions of fliers toss basic toiletries from their carry-ons, can't we reasonably deprive solo pilots a thrill ride up the East River?

The spot where Mr. Lidle’s plane, a single-engine Cirrus SR20, struck the apartment building on the Upper East Side is near the end of the “uncontrolled” corridor at the edge of the airspace governed by La Guardia Airport. Inside that corridor, small planes and helicopters can fly below 1,100 feet without getting clearance from air-traffic controllers. Using what are known as visual flight rules, or V.F.R., they assume responsibility for watching out for other aircraft and structures and avoiding them.

Comments

[aperkins]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks it is crazy that people are willing to give up their right to due process in the name of fighting terror but not their right to fly planes close to Manhattan.

[Jim Haynes]

Not so fast. Let’s get the facts about what caused this tragedy before we impose regulations that may have unintended consequences. Two dead in the sky over New York City yesterday, how many on the ground? Do I hear a call to ban cars from these congested streets? No.

[aperkins]

I see what you mean and agree that any thoughtless rush to regulations would be a bad thing. A big difference is that planes were used to kill thousands and regulating the flights of private, small aircraft would affect relatively few people. Cars have not been used in such an attack and any regulations applied to them would affect the habits of more people by far.

I just find it ridiculous that among all the overly broad steps that have been taken in reaction to 9/11, no one has given any thought to addressing the actual attack vector. What good does wiretapping phone calls do us if we don't even have the proper rules in place to prevent things like this from occurring?

[Steven Johnson]

Hey Jimmy, it's not so much the "two dead in the sky yesterday" that concerns me, it's the 3,000 dead the last time planes crashed into a building in NYC.

How hard would it be to get a couple of small jets, pack them with explosives, and fly up the east river and crash them into the UN or the Empire State building? You'd have to get the planes and somehow load them with explosives without anyone noticing, but once you took off, there'd literally be NOTHING stopping you from flying right into those buildings.

DC has protected airspace over the White House, etc. Why shouldn't Manhattan?

[Dave Munger]

"How hard would it be to get a couple of small jets, pack them with explosives, and fly up the east river and crash them into the UN or the Empire State building?"

Considerably harder than packing a truck with explosives and crashing it into those buildings. And you'd get significantly less bang: small planes have very small payload requirements. You could fit more explosives into a Volkswagen Rabbit.

Also, making it illegal to fly there wouldn't prevent someone from doing it. There's no way any preventive response could stop a plane speeding towards one of those buildings anyway.

[dave]

Why not? Because as a security risk, small planes are very nearly equivalent to helicopters. And I can imagine a ban on all small aircraft, including helicopters, upsetting a *lot* of people in manhattan.

[John Branch]

I think that, if we're going to worry about the proximity of small-plane flight areas to crowded urban areas and high-rise buildings, we have a lot more to worry about than just the East River and Manhattan. I'd guess that similar accidents are possible, and so are deliberate attacks taking advantage of the same rules, in any big city that's got a small airport in its vicinity. A few years ago, Chicago's mayor took pre-emptive action (in a way that seemed autocratic or illegal to some) and destroyed a small airport called Meigs Field near downtown Chicago, on the basis of similar fears. But that was an over-reaction, wasn't it? It was in my view.

[Joe d'Eon]

It's easy for us to promote other people's liberties to the top of the "Do Not Allow" list. I'm guessing that those who post here in favor of creating a "protected zone" over Manhattan are not pilots themselves, and have never flown up the East River. It's stunning and awe-inspiring to see the city from above ... and no, Google Earth doesn't give the same effect.

Of course, like I said, it's always easy to say what "they" shouldn't be allowed to do.

[James Pellien]

This is what the President of the Airline Owners and Pilots Assocation has to sat about the threat of small General Aviation airplanes.

============================================
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:

1. 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.

2. Banning all box trucks from cities. Timothy McVeigh's rented Ryder truck carried a 5,000-pound bomb that killed 168 in Oklahoma City.

3.Banning all semi-trailer trucks. They can carry bombs weighing more than 50,000 pounds.

4.Banning newspapers on subways. That's how the terrorists hid packages of sarin nerve gas in the Tokyo subway system. They killed 12.

5.Banning backpacks on all buses and subways. That's how the terrorists got the bombs into the London subway system. They killed 52.

6.Banning all cell phones on trains. That's how they detonated the bombs in backpacks placed on commuter trains in Madrid. They killed 191.

7.Banning all small pleasure boats on public waterways. That's how terrorists attacked the USS Cole, killing 17.

8.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.

Phil Boyer, President of AOPA
=========================================
I think Phil's argument is very, very persuasive.