Perspective: long term questions

[mbpark]

One other thing,

I've noticed that the main terminal for all international flights coming to and from NYC is Newark Airport.

Newark is in that zone with the port of Elizabeth that handles a large chunk of international commerce.

What does LaGuardia handle? It seems like JFK handles a lot of the domestic traffic, and Newark the international.

What does LaGuardia do? It seems to handle a lot of shorter-distance flights.

Mitch

[tw]

Originally posted by sycamore
... And is the area around the Pentagon not restricted airspace? (Not being sarcastic...I am unfamiliar with just what is and is not restricted airspace in DC.) ...

According to my Washington maps, there are only two areas restricted in Washinton DC. A circle in the NW corner (is that the Naval Observatory?) and a patch from Union train station across to the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials (that covers the White House, Capitol, and Foggy Bottom). The Potomac is not restricted and one commerical flight path passes directly over the Pentagon. Nothing outside of Washington DC limits is restricted. About half of Washington is not restricted.

In reality, there is really very little in NYC that is not redundant elsewhere. Even much of Washington is not a good target. However the Capitol and White House are too small, too easily located, and too important - ideal targets.

Part of the reason why Washington was so slow to respond to airliner attacks - no one (of significance) even believed or wanted to believe Clancy's scenario of a 747 crashing into the Capitol. Even just months eariler, a wild passenger tried to bash his way into the cockpit. He was only stopped when a large number of passengers joined the melee to attack the wild passenger. I believe it took six passengers plus flight crew to defend the cockpit. Even then, the 'Powers that Be' refused to address airline flight crews continued demands for better security - after how many Congressional hearings? IOW we needed this WTC attack to break complacency at the highest levels of government. Even now, those same complacent ones are still considering opening National for limited flights.

BTW keep in mind what Mary Scifone(?), the FAA's own Inspector General said about FAA mentalities after the TWA800 explosion. Her words (and also those of the NTSB) accused FAA of a graveyard mentality. Look what it takes to face reality after how many flight crews were attacked by unrully (unarmed, non-terrorist) passengers. Clancy's book alone should have been enough warning. The FAA and Congress did nothing. Even one Newark gate attendent is paralyzed and his attacker was declared innocent. How many graves were necessary to finally address even restricted airspace or even felony sentences for unrully passengers?


Look at how many flights Newark alone handles with two (too close) runways. Dullles could easily accomadate the increased traffic. BWI is vastly under utilitized. I sat on a bike trail in Linthicum watching. BWI is almost an unused airport by comparision. It needs more gates. It has plenty of room for expansion.

What would be the compromise on National? Congressman would be allowed private flights from National. Screw that. They should have to drive out to Dulles like everyone else. Just guess what state will suddenly get new funding for bigger highways westbound.


If you did not notice, many US cities received Aegis frigates or destroyers, or had Patriot batteries setup. You should start hearing about aircraft missile defense systems setup in the Washington DC area in the near future (I wonder where) - with Patriot sized missiles capable of taking a wing off or splitting the cabine of a 747. NYC may get one battery in NJ's Atlantic Highlands. The point is that a city like Washington requires a 5 minute warning for defensive decisions and responses. Currently the Air Force is notified within two minutes of any flight anomolies. Future responses should means no airliners over Washington and a new defense system (old technology) to provide a 'last point of defense' system.

BTW, current air defense over the White House cannot take out any airliner. They only installed defenses for aircraft that had already crashed on White House grounds - nothing for anything of larger size - again complacency.

In the meantime, restricted airspace should include all of and outside of Washington including VA, the CIA, Pentagon, and halfway to Dulles. Restricted airspace means only high security aircraft such as military and even then only with specific security restricitions. There was really no reason for airliners to be over any part of Washington. Presently most of Washington and nothing in adjacent MD or VA is restricted airspace.

As for NYC, my maps show no restricted airspace other than those conditions associated with Airport Control perimeters and minimum altitudes. Ironically, there are more restrictions on airspace well out into the Atlantic where Military Operations Areas are closed during military training. Maybe some NYC airspace restrictions will also be applied.

The second airliner that hit the WTC flew down from NY State, over western North Jersey, to McGuire AFB before turning to hit the WTC. He turned directly over F-16s that were never scrambled to defend NYC. Instead, fighters from Cape Cod were trying to defend the WTC. Indeed the Strategic Air Command (or equivalent) will take on a new mission and will reassess their anemic response so that 5 minutes should be sufficient response time.

Basically, the only reason that the military had any response at all was fighters waiting for a bomber attack incoming from the Atlantic. In hindsight, I don't think those Cape Cod fighters had authority to shoot down the second airliner even if they had arrived two minutes earlier. Again, there was no planning for domestic air terrorism. I don't believe anyone in the Air Force had enough balls to order missiles into that second 767 with only 30 seconds to make the decision. They did not have authority to make such as decision. But then we will never know since I am sure no one wants to talk.

[tw]

Originally posted by mbpark
I've noticed that the main terminal for all international flights coming to and from NYC is Newark Airport. ...
What does LaGuardia handle? It seems like JFK handles a lot of the domestic traffic, and Newark the international.

Newark is mostly domestic traffic with some international. Newark International traffic is probably equivalent to Philadelphia's. Major carrier is Continential.

LaGuardia is fully domestic. Major carrier includes US Air. JFK is everything. It is an essential international gateway to the US like Heathrow is to London and DeGaulle is to Paris. JFK is one of two airports permitted to accept the Concorde.

BTW, who was LaGaurdia? He was as legendary a mayor as Koch was in the 70s and Giuliani is today. I believe I have just names NYC's three greatest mayors in history - with LaGuardia probably being the best.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by tw


According to my Washington maps, there are only two areas restricted in Washinton DC. A circle in the NW corner (is that the Naval Observatory?)

Sounds like it. Is it relatively close to the Potomac, N of Reagan National?

Nothing outside of Washington DC limits is restricted. About half of Washington is not restricted.

Not even Andrews AFB (in N. Prince George's County, MD)?

In reality, there is really very little in NYC that is not redundant elsewhere.

Granted, you have a point. But why were the WTC towers attacked? Because of the SYMBOLIC value (or at least we suspect). Sure, they had practical value in terms of office space, but they represented America's financial power.

Look at how many flights Newark alone handles with two (too close) runways. Dullles could easily accomadate the increased traffic. BWI is vastly under utilitized.

EWR actually handles more passengers than JFK or LaGuardia (by 3 million and 9 million, respectively). But the New York metro area is over twice the size of Baltimore-Washington. Granted, both BWI and Dulles could be expanded, but depending on if people warm back up to travel, it may be unnecessary.

What would be the compromise on National? Congressman would be allowed private flights from National. Screw that. They should have to drive out to Dulles like everyone else. Just guess what state will suddenly get new funding for bigger highways westbound.

Well, Congressmen already have their own gas masks...

Arlington will go down swinging if they try to expand I-66...they were fighting over it when we moved up here.

Part of me thinks it's fair for the Congressmen to have their own private flights...of course, if they are using private planes. If they're running US Airways first class, then sure, ship 'em off to BWI or Dulles.

I was thinking about your comments regarding the Metro stopping at National, but not Dulles. Granted, a LOT of people use Metro. But I don't recall seeing, and can't imagine, government leaders using the Blue or Yellow line to hike it over to National. Would you say then, tw, that the Metro station at National is a "prop" to give National some credibility to the general public?

[Vogue State]

I just have to bite for this one ... you state that New Yorkers want revenge, we're pissed off, and we're going to be hard to stop. What an observation. We watched those towers crumble with our own eyes, yet we're not the ones shooting Indian storeowners and beating Afghanis in the streets; we're not the ones screaming for a bloody war.

You are making one hell of an assumption when you say so, and it's quite offensive. Come to New York and hear emotional grief,
anti-war rhetoric and actual intellectual discussion (possible in person too, not just online, apparently!). You'll have to look to the drunken hicks in Texas and Arizona for the traits you describe.

[tw]

The question of keeping National closed is mute. Politicians got even more and put a neat little twist on the facts. First, all Congressional flights will have multiple Air Marshalls. IOW that protection comes at the expense of protected flights from other airports and the general public. Those Congressman think their flights should have better protection? Of course. But they phrased it so that it sounds as if an infinite supply of Air Marshalls exist. Basically they want their cake and screw us too.

Prohibited air: yes ,that circle is due north of the Pentagon, on the Washington DC side of the Potomac. Is that where the Naval Observatory (and Cheney's house) is?

Outside of Washington are numerous restrictions. For example, over Fort AP Hill in VA, a large area west of what I think is Quantico, the area around and south of Patuxent River Naval Air, large area around what I believe is Aberdeen Test Ground, and a region in MD that I believe is Camp David - east of Hagarstown MD - an area that may be larger than Washington DC. But again, almost trivial prohibitions inside Washington DC and none outside of DC. Do you like this FAA graveyard mentality? Or is this just another example of Congressional mettling? 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. The only remaining question is who is the top management and will WE hold them accountable?

We know that National is only reopening because of a self serving Congress. They simply say we will add security on all flights. For who? The public, or for a self serving Congress? No Air Marshall is going to stop a suicidal pilot - Clancy's book again. No ground based defense system can protect anything in Washington if National remains in operation. Aircraft of that size have no business so close to Washington DC. But maybe that is too much logic for a Congress so interested in their own convenience and personal safety?

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by tw
Prohibited air: yes ,that circle is due north of the Pentagon, on the Washington DC side of the Potomac. Is that where the Naval Observatory (and Cheney's house) is?

Yep...on Massachusetts Ave. NW, along Embassy Row.

This talk reminds me of an incident that occurred last summer while I was living in DC. The Blue Angels were practicing (or something like that) nearby, and apparently, they broke formation and flew through restricted airspace in the city. I never heard what happened in the end; I believe it was some sort of miscommunication. *shrugs*

I'd be lying if I said I didn't hear much traffic over the skies during my time there. I can only recall seeing one aircraft--the President's chopper flying over to the White House, presumably from Andrews. Saw it while walking down Constitution Ave. one day. To be honest, I (incorrectly) assumed that aircraft could not fly over the city for security reasons. Of course, I lived just outside of NE DC, a short drive away from Andrews.

[russotto]

Originally posted by tw
We know that National is only reopening because of a self serving Congress. They simply say we will add security on all flights. For who? The public, or for a self serving Congress? No Air Marshall is going to stop a suicidal pilot - Clancy's book again. No ground based defense system can protect anything in Washington if National remains in operation. Aircraft of that size have no business so close to Washington DC. But maybe that is too much logic for a Congress so interested in their own convenience and personal safety?

To protect DC from aircraft which go over 500mph, you'd have to shut down National, Dulles, _and_ BWI, as well as most of the airspace around the entire area. Otherwise, your future terrorist just picks a flight that will go close by. Closing National would be a futile gesture.

I can drive from Dulles to BWI in less 60 minutes, barring traffic. Airliners can go 10 times faster and can take a straight line path. You do the math.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by russotto
I can drive from Dulles to BWI in less 60 minutes, barring traffic.

At 3am in the morning.