New permanent NYC "T"FR

Common sense would say they should just say northbound traffic in the corridor is fine so long as you stay over the river. Now with this little bit going out over the river and no more "squwak and talk" provision it will encourage people to get dangerously close to the southbound traffic. It's a simple issue that they are making a real mess of, although that's par for the course for government bureaucrats.
 
Yes! Finally a sensible revision! I might fly it tomorrow, and the East River-Central Park transition above the north edge of TFR.
 
They got the installation of the SAM site done on top of Trump tower so they're good with a smaller TFR now. =D
 
labbadabba said:
Not since Cory Lidle.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's no longer wide open to everybody like the Hudson exclusion, but if you call LGA, they will let you fly it, depending on what runway they are using because you may interfere with their inbounds.

On FF, the TFR looks like it's almost completely over land, barely any Hudson or East Rivers are included.
 
BigBadLou said:
I think it was a tongue-in-cheek joke aimed at inbred rednecks who blame the current president for all the wrongdoings in the world, including global warming, which (according to their beliefs) does not exist anyway. :D
Click to expand...

You really can't make a statement without insulting people, can you? Did it ever occur to you that the facts don't support "global warming"? The climate of this planet has been changing continually for its entire history. What many of us object to is the clamor that it is man-made. We also object to the "we've got to do something" mentality that always runs in the direction of higher taxes, more government and less freedom. All the while knowing that whatever happens, it won't have any impact on "climate change". And, what makes you believe that the current climate is the optimal climate?

I know, NASA says that last year was the warmest on record, by about 0.007 degrees C. I would like to know what the measurement instrumentation uncertainty is. I'll bet it's a bunch more that 0.007 degrees. Which would make the increase meaningless. We're still coming out of the last ice age. Of course the overall temperature is increasing (although it hasn't for the past almost 20 years) and glaciers are still receding. That's life on this rock.

Oh well, back to the TFR discussion...
 
Ghery said:
You really can't make a statement without insulting people, can you? Did it ever occur to you that the facts don't support "global warming"? The climate of this planet has been changing continually for its entire history. What many of us object to is the clamor that it is man-made. We also object to the "we've got to do something" mentality that always runs in the direction of higher taxes, more government and less freedom. All the while knowing that whatever happens, it won't have any impact on "climate change". And, what makes you believe that the current climate is the optimal climate?

I know, NASA says that last year was the warmest on record, by about 0.007 degrees C. I would like to know what the measurement instrumentation uncertainty is. I'll bet it's a bunch more that 0.007 degrees. Which would make the increase meaningless. We're still coming out of the last ice age. Of course the overall temperature is increasing (although it hasn't for the past almost 20 years) and glaciers are still receding. That's life on this rock.

Oh well, back to the TFR discussion...
Click to expand...

What caused the glaciers to recede over NA and NA/E 12000 years ago? My SUV?
 
Ghery said:
And, what makes you believe that the current climate is the optimal climate?
Click to expand...
Yes, we're certainly "improving" our planet by providing milder winters and more warm days at the beach. That's one take on it. Probably has nothing at all to do with massive global industrialization in the past 200 years, either.
 
Thanks to 'Global Warming' the ladies are wearing less clothing and some even display a glimpse of their, gasp, boobs.
 
bluesky74656 said:
. . . although I'm not sure from what source he's getting his data.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the integrity of the data (or lack of integrity) is what makes the graph meaningful? Otherwise it's just pretty colored lines?
 
The best thing about convincing oneself of a conspiracy is that no level of evidence can refute your belief in the conspiracy.

"Evidence contrary to my beliefs? Must be part of the conspiracy."
 
ircphoenix said:
The best thing about convincing oneself of a conspiracy is that no level of evidence can refute your belief in the conspiracy.

"Evidence contrary to my beliefs? Must be part of the conspiracy."
Click to expand...


...which is why we have a TFR in NYC.... lol
 
Ghery said:
You really can't make a statement without insulting people, can you? Did it ever occur to you that the facts don't support "global warming"?
Click to expand...
Depends on what "facts" you mean. The evidence that the vast majority of the late 20th century warming was man made is not overwhelming, that's for sure. But the evidence that the "greenhouse effect" acted as one of many factors that tipped us out of the last glacial is pretty well accepted from what I've read. No serious student of the field doubts that the current CO2 concentration will result in significant and measurable increase of the mean global temperature absent a decrease in the solar constant or some other external forcing (e.g. a major increase in volcanism), if it hasn't already. Where a lot of disagreement exists is in just how much it "has already". The IPCC says it is "very likely" (as I recall, that might have been "extremely likely") that more than half of the late 20th century warming was due to human-emitted greenhouse gases. Others say it is probably closer to half and suggest that the uncertainty is higher than the IPCC stated. The difficulty is in disentangling greenhouse warming from natural variability. Until we have a good handle on the climate's internal cycles on multi-decadal and even multi-centennial scales, that disagreement is likely to continue.
We also object to the "we've got to do something" mentality that always runs in the direction of higher taxes, more government and less freedom. All the while knowing that whatever happens, it won't have any impact on "climate change".
Click to expand...
Probably too strong. The difficulty will, once again, be in discerning how much of any change that occurs, if in the "right" direction, was due to what we did as opposed to natural variability. But a change in the CO2 concentration (or more correctly, a change in the rate of increase) will certainly have some effect.
I know, NASA says that last year was the warmest on record, by about 0.007 degrees C. I would like to know what the measurement instrumentation uncertainty is. I'll bet it's a bunch more that 0.007 degrees. Which would make the increase meaningless. We're still coming out of the last ice age.
Click to expand...
Maybe not. Depending on which of the Milankovic cycles determines the rhythm of the glaciations and reprieves during this ice age, we might already be slowly sliding down into the next glacial period. A recent post on Judith Curry's blog suggested that it would likely happen sometime in the next 1500 years or so. In which case, pouring CO2 into the atmosphere now might be doing our descendants a millenium hence a big favor.

Or maybe not. One thing I agree with Trump on, is that we still have much to learn about how our climate works.
 
orange said:
Yes, it's no longer wide open to everybody like the Hudson exclusion, but if you call LGA, they will let you fly it, depending on what runway they are using because you may interfere with their inbounds.

On FF, the TFR looks like it's almost completely over land, barely any Hudson or East Rivers are included.
Click to expand...

Yep, looks like it just extends over the piers, so stay west of them and you'd be fine. Honestly though, I'd really doubt they'd bust someone who is still over the river and only a few hundred feet into the TFR.
hudson.png
 
Ghery said:
...The climate of this planet has been changing continually for its entire history....
Click to expand...
It's important to note that this fact tells us that natural causes exist, but it doesn't tell us that human causes don't exist.The causes that were significant in one time frame are not necessarily the ones that are significant in another. It really is necessary to investigate a lot further into the subject to have an informed opinion on the matter.
 
unsafervguy said:
The New York pilots had better hope he doesn't come home to often after he is sworn in because it will become 30 miles up to 18k when he is president.

Bob
Click to expand...
Agreed, and past presidential TFRs have prohibited flight training throughout the full area. There's been talk of his wanting to spend a lot of time in New York even after he takes office:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/us/politics/trump-president.html?_r=0

This article mentions that the Secret Service would find his Florida location much easier to secure:

http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/14/trump-may-not-live-in-white-house/
 
It's not a political decision it's a security decision. The president , regardless of party , has and always will defer to security , secret service, etc. and let them determine the security of a president, others on board plus a tremendously expensive aircraft. Always has been this way. Common sense.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
It's not a political decision it's a security decision. The president , regardless of party , has and always will defer to security , secret service, etc. and let them determine the security of a president, others on board plus a tremendously expensive aircraft. Always has been this way. Common sense.
Click to expand...

He has no choice. If you read the recent inside story of being with Bush on 9/11, the USSS and the USAF Pilots essentially told him that they were not going back to DC. Period. Whether he liked it or not. 43 was not happy, but he wasn't driving the bus.

With respect to the Hudson Corridor, I note that Chuck "always a friend to aviation" Schumer was elected as Senate Democratic Leader today. Schumer pushed for a "no fly zone" around NYC like the one in DC after 9/11 happened.
 
Ghery said:
You really can't make a statement without insulting people, can you? Did it ever occur to you that the facts don't support "global warming"?
Click to expand...
LOL What have I done. I make fun of rednecks and it gets turned into a long-winded pointless GW discussion. Funny. PoA at its best.
Btw, I did not make any statement about whether global warming exists or does not. But I agree that it must be my fault anyway. :D

Back on topic:
POTUS TFRs will be here as long as we have a POTUS. That is just common sense. They differ in location based on who is in office and where they tend to travel outside of DC. We used to have a huge TFR over a little-known ranch in the middle of Texas. It was for President Bush (the father) when he took time off. There still is a small P area there nowadays (only to 2000' MSL and 2nm radius).
So no matter who the POTUS is, there will be TFRs, P areas and R areas. Let's hope that the SS co-operates with us pilots to keep the areas sensible as in this case. I think this is a decent success story.
 
For those wondering, I skipped the Hudson Corridor today and flew to PHL for a cheesesteak. It was delicious.
 
BigBadLou said:
LOL What have I done. I make fun of rednecks and it gets turned into a long-winded pointless GW discussion. Funny. PoA at its best.
Btw, I did not make any statement about whether global warming exists or does not. But I agree that it must be my fault anyway. :D

Back on topic:
POTUS TFRs will be here as long as we have a POTUS. That is just common sense. They differ in location based on who is in office and where they tend to travel outside of DC. We used to have a huge TFR over a little-known ranch in the middle of Texas. It was for President Bush (the father) when he took time off. There still is a small P area there nowadays (only to 2000' MSL and 2nm radius).
So no matter who the POTUS is, there will be TFRs, P areas and R areas. Let's hope that the SS co-operates with us pilots to keep the areas sensible as in this case. I think this is a decent success story.
Click to expand...
If you're talking about Crawford, and P-49, that's for W.
 
Mike I said:
For those wondering, I skipped the Hudson Corridor today and flew to PHL for a cheesesteak. It was delicious.
Click to expand...

Stop it! Actually I like Jersey cheesesteaks better as they use real cheese, white cheese I think. That stuff in Philly has cheesewiz on 'em .
 
Mike I said:
For those wondering, I skipped the Hudson Corridor today and flew to PHL for a cheesesteak. It was delicious.
Click to expand...
Which place did you get cheese steaks from? Last time I flew into PHL, I went to Geno's. The pretzels at Atlantic aren't too bad either.:D
 
jordane93 said:
Which place did you get cheese steaks from? Last time I flew into PHL, I went to Geno's. The pretzels at Atlantic aren't too bad either.:D
Click to expand...

I went to Sonny's in the Old City. Pretzels at Atlantic are great! I got a crew car from them, and it was a quick 10min drive up for lunch. Atlantic gave me a topoff (I only needed 12 gallons), and waived the ramp fee. I did get a long taxi out to 27L for departure and a bit out-of-the-way routing back to FRG, but I had satisfaction in my stomach so I was in no rush. PHL's not a bad Class B to fly into, and it's amazingly close to the city.
 
Mike I said:
I went to Sonny's in the Old City. Pretzels at Atlantic are great! I got a crew car from them, and it was a quick 10min drive up for lunch. Atlantic gave me a topoff (I only needed 12 gallons), and waived the ramp fee. I did get a long taxi out to 27L for departure and a bit out-of-the-way routing back to FRG, but I had satisfaction in my stomach so I was in no rush. PHL's not a bad Class B to fly into, and it's amazingly close to the city.
Click to expand...
Awesome! Yea PHL is really convenient to get to the city. I've been into PHL a few times IFR and VFR. Really easy to get in and out. Did they not offer you runway 26? I've always gotten that.
 
With the size and location I doubt I'll ever be needing to cross through that TFR.

Ahh, being exempt from nearly all TFRs :)

Only time I fly into that cesspool is for work, and I'm exempt, flew through the Pope/NATO TFR, couple other POTUS ones I think, etc etc.
 
mscard88 said:
Stop it! Actually I like Jersey cheesesteaks better as they use real cheese, white cheese I think. That stuff in Philly has cheesewiz on 'em .
Click to expand...
Only the tourist shops put cheese wiz on cheesesteaks, and places that attempt to emulate them.
jordane93 said:
Which place did you get cheese steaks from? Last time I flew into PHL, I went to Geno's. The pretzels at Atlantic aren't too bad either.:D
Click to expand...
Aside from getting the required cheesesteak selfie, forget Pats and Genos. There are literally hundreds of places around the city and close-in suburbs to get a cheesesteak that are as good or better.
 
jordane93 said:
Did they not offer you runway 26? I've always gotten that.
Click to expand...
Was expecting that, but didn't get 26 this time. Arrived on 35, and on departure was told to expect 35 full length, then 35 intersection departure from G, then finally they took me the long way to 27L. Kept me on a 300 heading for a long time, despite me needing 080 for Long Island. But hey, they worked me through their Bravo without too much grief, in a slowpoke 152 this time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top