The news article referred to by
mary meagher includes a link to the actual NTSB document (
http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2009/A09_82_86.pdf) that indeed suggests a SFAR to be established and separate altitudes required, but they kinda contradict themselves:
Recent FAA traffic estimates indicate that over 200 aircraft a day pass through the Hudson River class B exclusion area.
The Hudson River class B exclusion area and associated transition procedures have been in use for more than 30 years, and the safety record for operations in the area has been good. The NTSB has no record of previous collisions between aircraft operating in the Hudson River class B exclusion area.
[...]11 (NASA) reports of NMACs (Near Midair Collisions) between aircraft in the area since 1990. Only one report was filed in the past 10 years. Although ASRS reporting is voluntary, the number of reports received is very low relative to the number of flight operations through the Hudson River class B exclusion area.
...and then, a couple of pages later:
It is critical that all pilots operating within the Hudson River class B exclusion area share a common understanding of applicable operating practices, airspace boundaries, traffic flows, position reporting points, and reporting procedures used within the area.
The NTSB is concerned that the voluntary measures, such as recommended procedures annotated on the New York VFR Terminal Area Chart and the New York Helicopter Route Chart, currently in use to educate pilots on safe operations within the area may not be sufficient to achieve this objective.
Establish better procedures? sure, why not!
Develop a good how-to video and suggest it on the chart? good idea!
But impose regulations just because of one accident? No sir!
NTSB recommendations can be a good thing - not necessarily reasonable, but hey, they are exactly that, only 'recommendations'. As far as how well the FAA and the NTSB work together when one tries to invade somebody else's turf (sorry "recommending a change"): look how many (good) recommendations made by the NTSB for the EMS industry have been adapted by the FAA!?
PS: BTW: nothing of the positive safety record mentioned it the NTSB document has made it into the NY Times article, of course!
