Mid-Air Collision Over New York.
Gordy
I am from the UK - obviously. For the record, I've never complained about the CAA (apart from its bureaucracy and antiquated processes) and I'm not suggesting for a second that CAA regulations are 'imposed' on US pilots; however, I am suggesting that controls are not tight enough - equally obviously.
As a SFH'er I flew with a safety pilot in LV as a I described - unbelievably - and I was aware that the 20 helicopters were on a set path, however the ATC neither told me that, nor provided any information that might have prevented me colliding with any of those 20 helicopters. It was quite clearly up to each individual to avoid another.
Your Hawaii anecdote is interesting, but I too have flown in Hawaii and the experience was totally different to that of Las Vegas; a handful of machines over a wide area, all of which was sparsely populated and rural. In LV, flying a single engined machine over an intensely populated area at night and with a lot of other traffic is quite different and needs regulating, as it seems, does NYC.
TTB
I am from the UK - obviously. For the record, I've never complained about the CAA (apart from its bureaucracy and antiquated processes) and I'm not suggesting for a second that CAA regulations are 'imposed' on US pilots; however, I am suggesting that controls are not tight enough - equally obviously.
As a SFH'er I flew with a safety pilot in LV as a I described - unbelievably - and I was aware that the 20 helicopters were on a set path, however the ATC neither told me that, nor provided any information that might have prevented me colliding with any of those 20 helicopters. It was quite clearly up to each individual to avoid another.
Your Hawaii anecdote is interesting, but I too have flown in Hawaii and the experience was totally different to that of Las Vegas; a handful of machines over a wide area, all of which was sparsely populated and rural. In LV, flying a single engined machine over an intensely populated area at night and with a lot of other traffic is quite different and needs regulating, as it seems, does NYC.
TTB
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Where I'm pointing...
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ttb, please tell me, as I am a mere mortal, how more regulation would prevent an aircraft operating in controlled class D airspace, cleared for departure routing and frequency change to controlled class B airspace from having an emergency causing it to bust into airspace it was not cleared for in the same small piece of sky another aviator was unlucky enough to be operating in at the same time?
One would think "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate" would have been all the regulation required, and arguably the most effective in this situation.
The US has a pretty mature approach to Self Regulation, that works pretty effectively across various types of legislation... Every so know and then people/organizations need to be reminded of their self regulation obligations yes, it does not mean the right to self regulate, when it works for 99.9% of the time is at fault.
One would think "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate" would have been all the regulation required, and arguably the most effective in this situation.
The US has a pretty mature approach to Self Regulation, that works pretty effectively across various types of legislation... Every so know and then people/organizations need to be reminded of their self regulation obligations yes, it does not mean the right to self regulate, when it works for 99.9% of the time is at fault.
Toptobottom,
Next time you go SFH, request flight-following... and you'll get relevant info on those 20 other helicopters or so out there.
If you only have a Foreign License Validation based on your UK license, then you're only allowed to fly within the limitations on your UK license. If you obtain a FAA Private Pilot license, then the limitations will be diffrent.
All the regs in the world would not prevent accident from happening from time to time, unless a total BAN of flying. It's a way to hasty reaction, to call for stricter regulations, just cause an accident happen. We still don't know WHY this happened, and before we know, lets wait until we know more before discussing the regs.
Next time you go SFH, request flight-following... and you'll get relevant info on those 20 other helicopters or so out there.
If you only have a Foreign License Validation based on your UK license, then you're only allowed to fly within the limitations on your UK license. If you obtain a FAA Private Pilot license, then the limitations will be diffrent.
All the regs in the world would not prevent accident from happening from time to time, unless a total BAN of flying. It's a way to hasty reaction, to call for stricter regulations, just cause an accident happen. We still don't know WHY this happened, and before we know, lets wait until we know more before discussing the regs.
This type of area is not unique. Sydney Harbour and Parramatta river (Aus) is basically the same. Although no fixed wing allowed west of the bridge as the river is pretty narrow and defines the horizontal limits. It passes under the ILS for Sydney and the sky goes black when you pass under a 747. Worst days are when the weekend warriors are about.
Separation was tried and it doesn't work either. Self separation when things are busy is a struggle as well. One guy used to manage to hog the airtime and successfully separate himself from 10 other guys, but that was all. (RIP JB)
There was a method that worked pretty well in cattle mustering and was/is used effectively. Once the traffic is announced (i.e. you need to know it is there and indentify it) it is your problem if you are in the other guys blind spot! Think about that before you comment. It works. Granted it may not have any bearing on this circumstance.
Midairs between helicopter and fixed wing have happened before. Possibly not as rare an occurrence as some may think.
1993 Auckland mid-air collision
1992 Fox Glacier mid-air collision
Separation was tried and it doesn't work either. Self separation when things are busy is a struggle as well. One guy used to manage to hog the airtime and successfully separate himself from 10 other guys, but that was all. (RIP JB)
There was a method that worked pretty well in cattle mustering and was/is used effectively. Once the traffic is announced (i.e. you need to know it is there and indentify it) it is your problem if you are in the other guys blind spot! Think about that before you comment. It works. Granted it may not have any bearing on this circumstance.
Midairs between helicopter and fixed wing have happened before. Possibly not as rare an occurrence as some may think.
1993 Auckland mid-air collision
1992 Fox Glacier mid-air collision
Last edited by RVDT; 11th Aug 2009 at 15:16.
toptoottom.
Birddog states it best in his last paragraph which I could not have said better:
As an observer with a "safety pilot" who was familiar with the area, you obviously have your opinion about the Vegas airspace. ATC is under no obligation to give you traffic information---the radio would never be quiet. Amazingly---one can drive safely on a freeway with thousands of cars and NO traffic information---why? Because everyone follows a set procedure or pattern. As for your Hawaii experience---I am guessing you were not on Kauai.
As for the night over densely populated area---I flew the San Francisco area for 8 years--at night, single engine----the rules in the US are completely different to what you are used to---that does not mean it cannot be accomplished safely.
Birddog states it best in his last paragraph which I could not have said better:
The US has a pretty mature approach to Self Regulation, that works pretty effectively across various types of legislation... Every so know and then people/organizations need to be reminded of their self regulation obligations yes, it does not mean the right to self regulate, when it works for 99.9% of the time is at fault.
As for the night over densely populated area---I flew the San Francisco area for 8 years--at night, single engine----the rules in the US are completely different to what you are used to---that does not mean it cannot be accomplished safely.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course a lot of us over here in the UK are just plain jealous of the freedom you guys have over there in the US. Good luck to you may it last a long time. We all know a single engine helicopter is just as reliable at night as it is during the day. Try telling that to the campaign. Aparently they dictate that it is ok for a single engine plank to fly IFR but not a single engine helicopter.
work that one out. And as for being allowed to fly any piston heli with only a Robbo ticket, hell I don't see anything wrong with that.
(if you can fly a Robbo you can fly anything, right?...) I wonder if you have to have anual check rides as well over there where the grass is greener? 
work that one out. And as for being allowed to fly any piston heli with only a Robbo ticket, hell I don't see anything wrong with that. (if you can fly a Robbo you can fly anything, right?...) I wonder if you have to have anual check rides as well over there where the grass is greener?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
toptobottom
I couldn't disagree more.
IMHO, the FAA has generally got the degree of regulation about right. No system is perfect, but it's the best I know having looked closely at various jurisdictions over many years.
Perhaps the explanation by birddog will make it less amazing to you:
Many British pilots complain about the volume of our rules and regs (I note you say you don't) but I've long believed that many Brits actually like rules and regs - despite what they say.
Perhaps it's a symptom of our 'nanny knows best' culture.
(My theory has been strengthened by reading discussions in various forums on PPRuNe over many years. When a British pilot asks if it's legal to do something, he's usually inundated with a variety of reasons why he can't because it would be illegal - many of which display extraordinary and tortuous ingenuity. In contrast, very few people use the same degree of effort or ingenuity into coming up with a way in which the objective could, perhaps with a minor variation, be achieved entirely legally.
I've found this negative attitude to be particularly true of PPLs.)
FL
It was clear to me that the US needs far tighter control over who can fly what and when; it's amazing to me that there aren't more accidents like this...
IMHO, the FAA has generally got the degree of regulation about right. No system is perfect, but it's the best I know having looked closely at various jurisdictions over many years.
Perhaps the explanation by birddog will make it less amazing to you:
The US has a pretty mature approach to Self Regulation, that works pretty effectively across various types of legislation... Every so know and then people/organizations need to be reminded of their self regulation obligations yes, it does not mean the right to self regulate, when it works for 99.9% of the time is at fault.
Perhaps it's a symptom of our 'nanny knows best' culture.
(My theory has been strengthened by reading discussions in various forums on PPRuNe over many years. When a British pilot asks if it's legal to do something, he's usually inundated with a variety of reasons why he can't because it would be illegal - many of which display extraordinary and tortuous ingenuity. In contrast, very few people use the same degree of effort or ingenuity into coming up with a way in which the objective could, perhaps with a minor variation, be achieved entirely legally.
I've found this negative attitude to be particularly true of PPLs.)
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 11th Aug 2009 at 09:03.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it is to our credit that we are trying to make things better here on this forum.
as many of you know, a NY area auto crash killed almost as many people and I see nothing trying to change traffic laws.
this was an accident...fate? a wake up call to do even more of what we already know how to do? more clearing"
perhaps we should horizontally seperate aircraft by speed?
I would say to the copter people that joining the circuit by crossing the river should be a ''no no''...but joining on the manhattan side and flying north around the circuit.
oh well..it probably won't happen again for twenty years.
as many of you know, a NY area auto crash killed almost as many people and I see nothing trying to change traffic laws.
this was an accident...fate? a wake up call to do even more of what we already know how to do? more clearing"
perhaps we should horizontally seperate aircraft by speed?
I would say to the copter people that joining the circuit by crossing the river should be a ''no no''...but joining on the manhattan side and flying north around the circuit.
oh well..it probably won't happen again for twenty years.
Anyway, back to it ...
Earlier on page 1 I mentioned about the undercarriage being down on the piper, then it was said that loss of hydraulics due to wing seperation may cause this, then it was speculated that viewers accounted the helicopter flying up into path of descending fixed wing (maybe due to reported engine troubles reported to tower?)
Having flown both aircraft types, visibilty is bad in piper whe trying to see anything below in slow airspeed, raised nose position, and head down in cockpit to resolve issue. Also visibilty is bad in A-star due to nose lowered immediately after take-off to build speed, and quick scan of sky may have just blended in white painted base of aircraft into white clouded skyline from lower altitude?
These and many other small factors may have contributed to it, and I really can't see that any blame should be layed right now by some previous comments that helicopter is at fault, or plane at fault. If the aircraft were in opposite positions, then visibilty would have been fine, but this was not the case.
The only thing to comment on at the moment would be making awareness to others on how to maintain clearance and safety margins in current corridor, and maybe suggest options of ADS-B or TCAS systems to be implemented. Its a shame what happened, makes me sad because how many times have you almost had a car collision due to sun glare, or just seen a car at last moment due to blending in current surroundings or view impaired, but avoided an accident?? Many would own up to yes, and say that was close, AND learnt from it. .... .... Unfortunately and sadly this one was too close and now we only hope that we can all make positive suggestions on this cruel accident so that it doesnt happen again, coz it could be one of your family in there one day.
1- No blaming either fixed wing or rotary wing in this case, until the case is cleared by the NTSB.
2- My suggestion would be to have 200' seperation in height wise of fixed wing and rotary wing, allowing lower heights for helicopters, as they are more maneuravible in some situations. Floats should also be mandatory, with water sensors to operate them as backup. i know float systems for the Eurocopter, and have personally fitted and packed them. Maybe survivors may have been if not stricken craft sunk to bottom?
Earlier on page 1 I mentioned about the undercarriage being down on the piper, then it was said that loss of hydraulics due to wing seperation may cause this, then it was speculated that viewers accounted the helicopter flying up into path of descending fixed wing (maybe due to reported engine troubles reported to tower?)
Having flown both aircraft types, visibilty is bad in piper whe trying to see anything below in slow airspeed, raised nose position, and head down in cockpit to resolve issue. Also visibilty is bad in A-star due to nose lowered immediately after take-off to build speed, and quick scan of sky may have just blended in white painted base of aircraft into white clouded skyline from lower altitude?
These and many other small factors may have contributed to it, and I really can't see that any blame should be layed right now by some previous comments that helicopter is at fault, or plane at fault. If the aircraft were in opposite positions, then visibilty would have been fine, but this was not the case.
The only thing to comment on at the moment would be making awareness to others on how to maintain clearance and safety margins in current corridor, and maybe suggest options of ADS-B or TCAS systems to be implemented. Its a shame what happened, makes me sad because how many times have you almost had a car collision due to sun glare, or just seen a car at last moment due to blending in current surroundings or view impaired, but avoided an accident?? Many would own up to yes, and say that was close, AND learnt from it. .... .... Unfortunately and sadly this one was too close and now we only hope that we can all make positive suggestions on this cruel accident so that it doesnt happen again, coz it could be one of your family in there one day.
1- No blaming either fixed wing or rotary wing in this case, until the case is cleared by the NTSB.
2- My suggestion would be to have 200' seperation in height wise of fixed wing and rotary wing, allowing lower heights for helicopters, as they are more maneuravible in some situations. Floats should also be mandatory, with water sensors to operate them as backup. i know float systems for the Eurocopter, and have personally fitted and packed them. Maybe survivors may have been if not stricken craft sunk to bottom?
I seem to have touched a few nerves here! Let me respond to a few things:
1) There are many CAA rules and regs that are simply obselete and IMHO the entire book needs reviewing - unfortunately, the wonderful EASA is doing just that and is suggesting some plainly ridiculous new legislation, particularly for PPL(H)s.
2) birddog - I appreciate you're only a mere mortal, but note I'm neither familiar with the precise circumstances of this particular incident nor the area and therefore I'm not qualified to criticise any procedures that should have been followed. I was simply posting my own experience of flying in the US, as compared with many of the other countries I've flown in. Your sarcasm is wasted I'm afraid.
3) I am certainly not suggesting that CAA rules and regs are 'imposed' on our American cousins, whom I agree enjoy an altogether better flying environment (not least the weather!). I wish I could fly there all the time.
4) Nubian - you make some good points; until the reasons for this incident become clear, we won't know if there will be any recommendations that could avoid a repetition. I don't recall my safety pilot asking for 'Flight following' - in fact I hardly heard him say anything - perhaps that's why my experience was so daunting?
5) Gordy:
Try explaining that to thousands of mainland Europeans who drive to the UK and suddenly have to drive on the left-hand side of the road. The roads from the entry ports are crammed with Traffic Information signs saying 'drive on the left!' because we understand that a visitor won't necessarily be familiar with the set procedures and patterns of a foreign territory. You'd be 'amazed' at how much damage can be caused by somebody operating in an unfamiliar environment without proper instruction. I could easily have been that person in LV.
6) Flying Lawyer - I am still 'amazed' that in the US, armed only with an R22 FAA license and say, 50 daytime hours experience, I can jump into any ship, at night (of course the engine is as safe at night as in the day, but an inexperienced pilot isn't) and I am judged to be safe, despite the total lack of training. IMHO that's absurd, but in the US, it's also entirely legal. And as for your theory that many Brits like rules and regs - that's amazing! I don't know a single UK citizen who secretly wants to be a member of a 'nanny state' - the Government almost had a riot on its hands at just the mention of ID cards!
Sorry if all the Americans on here think I'm trying to take away their flying freedom - I am most certainly not. You guys are very lucky and I wouldn't wish the many onerous and obselete CAA regs on my worst enemy. However, IN MY EXPERIENCE, the controls in the US (at least around LV) are way behind the UK and it's MY VIEW that this is a situation that needs improvement.
TTB
1) There are many CAA rules and regs that are simply obselete and IMHO the entire book needs reviewing - unfortunately, the wonderful EASA is doing just that and is suggesting some plainly ridiculous new legislation, particularly for PPL(H)s.
2) birddog - I appreciate you're only a mere mortal, but note I'm neither familiar with the precise circumstances of this particular incident nor the area and therefore I'm not qualified to criticise any procedures that should have been followed. I was simply posting my own experience of flying in the US, as compared with many of the other countries I've flown in. Your sarcasm is wasted I'm afraid.
3) I am certainly not suggesting that CAA rules and regs are 'imposed' on our American cousins, whom I agree enjoy an altogether better flying environment (not least the weather!). I wish I could fly there all the time.
4) Nubian - you make some good points; until the reasons for this incident become clear, we won't know if there will be any recommendations that could avoid a repetition. I don't recall my safety pilot asking for 'Flight following' - in fact I hardly heard him say anything - perhaps that's why my experience was so daunting?
5) Gordy:
Amazingly---one can drive safely on a freeway with thousands of cars and NO traffic information---why? Because everyone follows a set procedure or pattern.
6) Flying Lawyer - I am still 'amazed' that in the US, armed only with an R22 FAA license and say, 50 daytime hours experience, I can jump into any ship, at night (of course the engine is as safe at night as in the day, but an inexperienced pilot isn't) and I am judged to be safe, despite the total lack of training. IMHO that's absurd, but in the US, it's also entirely legal. And as for your theory that many Brits like rules and regs - that's amazing! I don't know a single UK citizen who secretly wants to be a member of a 'nanny state' - the Government almost had a riot on its hands at just the mention of ID cards!
Sorry if all the Americans on here think I'm trying to take away their flying freedom - I am most certainly not. You guys are very lucky and I wouldn't wish the many onerous and obselete CAA regs on my worst enemy. However, IN MY EXPERIENCE, the controls in the US (at least around LV) are way behind the UK and it's MY VIEW that this is a situation that needs improvement.
TTB
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a catch...
When you read an accident report you may come across the phrase, "operation beyond experience/ability level," or words to that effect.
Just look at the high-profile accident that killed JFK, Junior, his wife and his sister-in-law. He was flying at night, VFR, over open water in marginal VMC. All of this was legal but fatal because he was beyond his ability to do that. (He went along okay for a while but finally augered in in what looked like a typical accident due to disorientation, when he hit the water and sank, killing all aboard.) You could argue that layers and layers of rules, as in the UK, would have prevented that one crash and you might well be correct. In the States we rely instead on common sense to keep us from going too far in what we attempt to do with an aircraft.
Certainly there have been high-profile crashes of light helos in the UK that were put down to VFR in IMC so that I don't think more rules will necessarily do the job of keeping us safe.
Just look at the high-profile accident that killed JFK, Junior, his wife and his sister-in-law. He was flying at night, VFR, over open water in marginal VMC. All of this was legal but fatal because he was beyond his ability to do that. (He went along okay for a while but finally augered in in what looked like a typical accident due to disorientation, when he hit the water and sank, killing all aboard.) You could argue that layers and layers of rules, as in the UK, would have prevented that one crash and you might well be correct. In the States we rely instead on common sense to keep us from going too far in what we attempt to do with an aircraft.
Certainly there have been high-profile crashes of light helos in the UK that were put down to VFR in IMC so that I don't think more rules will necessarily do the job of keeping us safe.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some excellent posts here for sure. May I say that the "see and avoid" principles of US airspace management, earned my utmost respect.
I have yet to see anywhere in OZ that traffic density comes close, yet all one hears is complaints when ever a midair occurs, usually beacause of failure of the mark one eyeball, or more particularly the vacant grey matter behind the mark one turnout.
In the los Angeles basin, of a mere few hundred square miles, wherein existed most of the several highest density traffic areas in the world it was amazing that only one midair occured every two or three years?
However, and the corrollary has been drawn to road traffic, whenever roads become congested they become widened or redesigned to create better flow etc.
The problem seems to be in this instance is that there is no way that the Hudson corridor can be widened due to possibly a rising crescendo of noise complaints. The oveflying RPT traffic will remain at their current levels but the traffic density of lighties has increased tremendously.
What has worked for decades may be so, but like the tank that eventually stops flowing water when the outlet finally becomes at the same level at the storage, these areas need to be examined by the local "Airspace Usage Committe" with a higher degree of responsibility to work out methods of alleviating more conflict.
They are the regulators who need to be questioned, not FAA, ATC or NTSB or anyone else to my mind, mind you those mentioned would all have a responsibility to bring the matter to the attention of the 'AUC' should they see conflict arising.
For clarification, Airspace Usage Committee, i believe is often referred to as Airspace Management Committee
I have yet to see anywhere in OZ that traffic density comes close, yet all one hears is complaints when ever a midair occurs, usually beacause of failure of the mark one eyeball, or more particularly the vacant grey matter behind the mark one turnout.
In the los Angeles basin, of a mere few hundred square miles, wherein existed most of the several highest density traffic areas in the world it was amazing that only one midair occured every two or three years?
However, and the corrollary has been drawn to road traffic, whenever roads become congested they become widened or redesigned to create better flow etc.
The problem seems to be in this instance is that there is no way that the Hudson corridor can be widened due to possibly a rising crescendo of noise complaints. The oveflying RPT traffic will remain at their current levels but the traffic density of lighties has increased tremendously.
What has worked for decades may be so, but like the tank that eventually stops flowing water when the outlet finally becomes at the same level at the storage, these areas need to be examined by the local "Airspace Usage Committe" with a higher degree of responsibility to work out methods of alleviating more conflict.
They are the regulators who need to be questioned, not FAA, ATC or NTSB or anyone else to my mind, mind you those mentioned would all have a responsibility to bring the matter to the attention of the 'AUC' should they see conflict arising.
For clarification, Airspace Usage Committee, i believe is often referred to as Airspace Management Committee
Last edited by topendtorque; 11th Aug 2009 at 19:15.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Essex
Age: 54
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA Ticket
The FAA Rotorcraft Licence allows you to fly rotorcraft under 12,500 lbs (excluding Robinsons for which there is I believe some type rating). In theory you can fly any machine IF you can convince the owner to give you the keys.
In practice, and my limited experience, it won't happen without some sort of checkride...or if turbine, 'initial turbine course' and then you will then need a minimum number of hours to solo in the aircraft for insurance purposes.
Also of note re: insurance, is you may be required to take out renters insurance or if insurance is included it may not include the hull! Bend it, it comes out of your pocket.
What the FAA license does (and one reason I opted for FAA) is remove the requirement to be tested on each type you fly every year - potentially very expensive on the CAA system if you are a professional pilot and hold multiple type ratings. On the US system you need to remain currenta nd satisfy the BFR requirement.
The FAA system has some flaws, but is light years better than the Campaign Against Aviation
In practice, and my limited experience, it won't happen without some sort of checkride...or if turbine, 'initial turbine course' and then you will then need a minimum number of hours to solo in the aircraft for insurance purposes.
Also of note re: insurance, is you may be required to take out renters insurance or if insurance is included it may not include the hull! Bend it, it comes out of your pocket.
What the FAA license does (and one reason I opted for FAA) is remove the requirement to be tested on each type you fly every year - potentially very expensive on the CAA system if you are a professional pilot and hold multiple type ratings. On the US system you need to remain currenta nd satisfy the BFR requirement.
The FAA system has some flaws, but is light years better than the Campaign Against Aviation
I have never flown over the Hudson myself. However, since it is a river, it extremely easy to see its edges. With VFR corridors over land, pilots may be less certain of the edges and stray more easily into each others way.
In terms of flying in controlled airspace over the Hudson, ATC may be too busy at times to permit it, especially for sightseeing.
Is there more about the plane reporting engine trouble? Was it losing altitude at the time of the collision? It may have been impossible to see traffic below.
In terms of flying in controlled airspace over the Hudson, ATC may be too busy at times to permit it, especially for sightseeing.
Is there more about the plane reporting engine trouble? Was it losing altitude at the time of the collision? It may have been impossible to see traffic below.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the JFK crash, my uncle used to say, "there are old pilots and bold pilots but there are no old bold pilots."
Obviously, every crash involving injury or loss of life is tragic.
Question: If the fixed wing lost power over water such as the Hudson River, is it appropriate to lower the landing gears? I would think if a water ditch would be necessary, you would go without wheels down.
Anyone who knows the terrain around the George Washington Bridge would immediately conclude that a ground landing when an engine goes at 500 - 1000 feet is impossible.
Obviously, every crash involving injury or loss of life is tragic.
Question: If the fixed wing lost power over water such as the Hudson River, is it appropriate to lower the landing gears? I would think if a water ditch would be necessary, you would go without wheels down.
Anyone who knows the terrain around the George Washington Bridge would immediately conclude that a ground landing when an engine goes at 500 - 1000 feet is impossible.
Question: If the fixed wing lost power over water such as the Hudson River, is it appropriate to lower the landing gears? I would think if a water ditch would be necessary, you would go without wheels down.
Also, if there are swells (waves) you want to land parallel to the waves (along the crest or trough) to avoid "hitting" a wave front.
A controlled ditching has a fairly high survival rate, and would be better than taking your chances of landing on a road in that area.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: No one's home...
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toptobottom
You may have a good future in American politics.
MORE rules. More CONTROL. Its in vogue now here in the states where obviously the 'little people' can't and don't exercise intelligent choice. (See healthcare debate and being 'un-American
)
It was clear to me that the US needs far tighter control over who can fly what and when; it's amazing to me that there aren't more accidents like this...
MORE rules. More CONTROL. Its in vogue now here in the states where obviously the 'little people' can't and don't exercise intelligent choice. (See healthcare debate and being 'un-American
)
Last edited by wileydog3; 11th Aug 2009 at 16:07.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest you lurk a while and read up on the topic before you post...
I don't lecture. But I do search for info, and draw attention to it. You'll find references to the aerodynamic dangers of helicopters getting too close to fixed wing a/c in this AOPA report, as I did, and I doubt that many private pilots are aware of the hazard:
AOPA Online: Landmark Accidents: Down and Locked
NTSB won't report their findings for a while yet. Maybe a long while. We do know that both machines had a right to be in that corridor. Engine failure is highly unlikely. In the absence of black boxes, it will probably be speculative, and finally put down to joint lack of care (see and avoid).
In the meantime, we are all putting in our 2 cents worth. At the least, it may help avoid a future accident.