May 11th, 2009
06:15 PM ET
5 years ago

FAA cancels Navy's New York flyover

Another military flyover in lower Manhattan has been canceled less than a week after the White House official responsible for the flyover that resulted in this photo tendered his resignation to the president.
Another military flyover in lower Manhattan has been canceled less than a week after the White House official responsible for the flyover that resulted in this photo tendered his resignation to the president.

NEW YORK (CNN) - Less than a month after an unannounced government-sanctioned lower-Manhattan flyover frightened New Yorkers, the Federal Aviation Administration turned down a U.S. Navy unit's request to fly military aircraft 3,000 feet over the Hudson River in New York City Monday morning.

In a statement, Jim Peterson, a spokesperson for the FAA, said that after receiving the Navy's request to fly a P-3 squadron over the area, the FAA notified the New York mayor's office.

A spokesman for the mayor's office told CNN that after the April 27 Air Force One flight for a photo session, a new notification procedure was instituted for potential flyovers.

"We were notified by the FAA this morning," said Jason Post of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's office.

"We told the FAA we didn't think there was enough notice given, and then the FAA - on their own - made the decision to cancel the flight," Post said, adding that the city itself does not have the authority to tell the FAA to cancel a flyover, but can make recommendations to the agency.

The FAA's Peterson said, "When higher-level FAA officials learned about the request, they informed the Navy that the flight was not approved and would not be allowed to fly the requested route."

Navy spokesman Cappy Surette said later that a P-3 squadron based in the Brunswick, Maine, had planned to fly in a training exercise.

Surette explained that more than two dozen such Navy training flights have occurred over the Hudson since 2005. "It allows the squadron to practice complex air-traffic handoffs in a busy quadrant," he said.

"The request was made, they said 'Not this time,' we said 'OK.' " Surette added.

On Thursday President Barack Obama accepted the resignation of Louis Caldera, the director of the White House Military Office responsible for the controversial low-altitude flyover of New York City by a 747 plane used as Air Force One.

The flyover, officials said, was both a training mission and a government-sanctioned photo shoot.

Military officials estimated that the mission and the photo shoot, aimed at updating file photos of Air Force One - cost $328,835 in taxpayer money.

The low-flying plane accompanied by an F-16 fighter jet sent some New Yorkers into the streets and into a panic, reminding them of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the city. Building evacuations also took place across the Hudson River in Jersey City, New Jersey.

Updated: 6:15 p.m.


Filed under: New York • Obama administration
soundoff (13 Responses)
  1. Dan, TX

    Wow, they actually fixed a problem.

    May 11, 2009 04:45 pm at 4:45 pm |
  2. Mississippi Mike

    They need to take the Obama approach: Do it now and get forgiveness later.

    May 11, 2009 04:47 pm at 4:47 pm |
  3. Dutch/Bad Newz, VA

    Gosh! You might as well make NYC's airspace a no fly zone.

    May 11, 2009 04:51 pm at 4:51 pm |
  4. Polly

    hmmm...over the Hudson...

    May 11, 2009 04:55 pm at 4:55 pm |
  5. Sniffit

    Since when was NYC such a hotbed of pantwetters anyway? This has all gone well beyond ridiculous.

    May 11, 2009 04:56 pm at 4:56 pm |
  6. bob in LA

    I always thought New Yorkers were tough. Why all the panick?
    They want fear? Go watch thier kids getting on buses to fight a war that shouldn't exisit. Far more Americans have been kidded in Iraq than in those towers.

    May 11, 2009 05:10 pm at 5:10 pm |
  7. Tony

    It is good to see NYC being proactive as well as the FAA putting a stop to these flights. The people do not need this kind of attention but it begs the question, Why are these flyovers needed?

    May 11, 2009 05:12 pm at 5:12 pm |
  8. The Party of NO stood calmly by for 8 year while the shrub raped and pillaged America, so, why would we listen to you now?

    Does this mean New York City is an "official" no fly zone??

    I live in Dallas, and if we were to follow your model after 8 years, we would still be running and ducking every time a car backfires some 40 years later!

    May 11, 2009 05:21 pm at 5:21 pm |
  9. G NO P

    Mississippi Mike May 11th, 2009 4:47 pm ET

    They need to take the Obama approach: Do it now and get forgiveness later

    Or the Bush approach, do it now, then deny it

    May 11, 2009 05:32 pm at 5:32 pm |
  10. Alexis, NY

    As a resident of Manhattan, it is not that we "want fear" or that we are not tough. Planes do not fly low over the city. Ever. Of course people will be afraid if it happens. It is not unreasonable or weak. It was a mistake and we have forgotten about it, but the reaction of the city was natural after what happened 8 years ago.

    May 11, 2009 05:33 pm at 5:33 pm |
  11. Sniffit

    @ G NO P, who said "Or the Bush approach, do it now, then deny it"

    You forgot the step of having your justice department draw up memos full of tongue-in-cheek bad faith legal reasoning first.

    May 11, 2009 05:36 pm at 5:36 pm |
  12. The Party of NO stood calmly by for 8 year while the shrub raped and pillaged America, so, why would we listen to you now?

    "As a resident of Manhattan, it is not that we "want fear" or that we are not tough. Planes do not fly low over the city. Ever."

    Better to stay in NYC Dallas has DFW and Love Field and both have and between the two there are thousands of very low flying planes, especially Love which is close to downtown.

    May 11, 2009 05:55 pm at 5:55 pm |
  13. Kailash

    A ceonmmt from http://www.freerepublic.com as to the "photo op."If that was a photo op, where was the plane taking the photos? I assume you want a photo of the Air Force One from the side with the skyline in the background, but the trailing F-16 could not have served in this role, as it was behind the 747. So where is the aircraft that was taking these photos?27 posted on Monday, April 27, 2009 9:17:50 AM by GreenAccord (Bacon Akbar!)

    February 18, 2012 10:24 pm at 10:24 pm |

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.