Mid-Air Collision Over New York.

[hetrotrolleydolly]

Reuters reporting 2 helicopters collided near the Hudson River in New Jersey .Still only ticker on Sky News at 1742 local London time .

[Super VC-10]

Breaking news on Sky, two helicopters in mid-air collision in New Jersey near the Hudson River. One may be a light aircraft but details sketchy at the moment.

[22 Degree Halo]

BBC website reports light aircraft and helicopter colliding..

[DocJacko]

NY1 | 24 Hour Local News | Top Stories | At Least One Dead In Air Crash Over Hudson River (http://ny1.com/content/top_stories/103759/two-helicopters-collide-over-hudson-river/Default.aspx)

Sources tell NY1 that at least one person has died after a helicopter collided into a small plane and fell into the Hudson River near 14th Street in Manhattan.

Authorities say the debris fell into the water and the river's New Jersey shore.

Many shocked onlookers heard a loud noise.

One onlooker named Bo, who saw the crash from a roof deck by Christopher Street, said that he saw a black helicopter and a white and red biplane collided mid-air, and a wing separated from the body of the plane.

According to Bo, both aircrafts "spiralled down" and immediately submerged under water.

Sources tell NY1 that the aircraft may have taken off from Teterboro Airport.

A NY1 crew is on the scene and will continue to have live reports throughout the day

[007helicopter]

Not much more news yet

Plane, Helicopter Crash Over Hudson River In New York City - cbs2.com (http://cbs2.com/national/helicopter.hudson.river.2.1120222.html)

[DocJacko]

One survivor was rescued by city fire crews so far.

[Super VC-10]

BBC haven't got much either.

BBC NEWS | Americas | US 'helicopter and plane collide' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8191582.stm)

[IntheTin]

Talk of a survivor.


Helicopter hits small plane near New York | U.S. | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5771L520090808)

[Phil77]

CNN & Fox saying that the Helicopter belonged to Liberty Helicopters.

AP reports aircraft where an AStar and a PA32 Cherokee Six.

:sad:

[JTobias]

Folks,

Not Good news, I flew with Liberty helicopters 3 years ago.


Joel

[Loerie]

Seems to have been a Tour Helicopter with 6 onboard and light aircraft maybe with two.No debris on the surface,divers in the water.

[Phil77]

NY major Bloomberg mentioned that eyewitnesses reported that the airplane ran into the back of the helicopter... but obviously that is not confirmed.

Bloomberg himself btw. is a helicopter pilot himself, flying his Augusta Grand in and out of the city himself.

[birrddog]

The Mayor gave the best report out of everyone, and resisted the hysteria about closing the Hudson River Corridor as promoted by CNN.

Sadly the report is that only two bodies have been recovered so far putting doubt on the earlier announcements that there was a survivor.

Italian family of 5 + pilot in Liberty Helicopter, and 3 in the Piper (Saratoga?), one a child.

Divers have located one wreckage believed possibly to be that of the helicopter.

No longer a rescue operation, but a salvage operation being performed by NYPD divers.

Being my local neck of the woods, and having flown several times in the corridor I can attest to the alertness and situational awareness particularly of the helicopter pilots in the corridor.

Sadly CNN's "resident expert" who has only ever flown above the corridor helped fuel incorrect hysteria about how congested he believed the space to be just because it is under busy airspace.

Glad I cancelled my flight today. North of the corridor though would have had a concerned Mrs B at home.

Thoughts go out to those involved and our fellow rotorheads who fly in the area.

[BOAC]

No doubt we will get the full story from Bronx who may even have been involved?

[Maxan_Murphy]

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg Statement On Helicopter & Small Plane [Piper PA-32] Crash Over New York City's Hudson River - 08/08/09

NjaVe_mfkqQ
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjaVe_mfkqQ)

[orbit22]

The Mayor reports a mid-air collision over Hudson, Jersey side off pier 40, appx 14th street, between Piper PA32 and tour copter. Pilot and two pax on fixed wing, departed Teterboro and headed south over Hudson in vfr corridor. Copter just departed 30th street heliport with pilot and five Italian tourists. Aircraft collided just minutes before noon local time. Both aircraft suffered damage in the air and shed pieces, then plunged into river. No survivors and rescue is now deemed recovery.

[singpilot]

Just heard the Borough President of Manhattan call for more regulations reguarding flying over NYC. Says 'bus drivers have more regulations than pilots....'

He said it with a straight face too.

[handbag]

If there was another case area for ADS-B implementation, then the NYC VFR area would be it.

[ToTall]

Another sad day of 2009 aviation.

Thoughts goes to those left behind.

[Never in Balance]

That still photograph is just horrific, i am in NYC at the moment and was thinking about taking a flight.
Condolences to the families involved, very tragic indeed.

[AnthonyGA]

There will probably be a long series of people clamoring for more restrictions on general aviation around NYC. There always is after an accident. Never mind that the number of accidents in the air around NYC is vanishingly small compared to the number of flights.

Ignorance may be bliss for the person afflicted with it, but it can be a serious headache for everyone else.

[wileydog3]

Fortunately Bloomberg, the mayor, is a private pilot and is apparently a cooler head. He is not calling for closure of the corridor.

[PaperTiger]

Are the helicopters under positive control ? Same freq. as the corridor ?

[bugg smasher]

There are three things here, that need to be installed in every aircraft for hire;

TCAS, TCAS, and TCAS.

[Kulwin Park]

Condolences :( Always afraid of hitting other aircraft when I fly around corridors, tho ATC would monitor it with transponder codes, it still doesnt help at the speeds we fly :/

Interesting that the pic shows the Left Main Gear is extended on the Piper Saratoga ... I wonder if it had problems? Also the mast snapped off below the MRH on the Astar - must have been a high side knock to shear off at that point there with rotor still relatively intact. :ooh: Anyway, not guessing, just wondering.

KP

[spacesage]

or ADS-B? we are waiting in Australia for this...

[wileydog3]

In the VFR corridor, everyone is supposed to be on the same freq but it is NOT class B airspace and no, not directed by ATC.

[wileydog3]

the Piper was not a for hire airplane and this is a single accident, not a frequent event. Making rules based on single events is overkill.

[spacesage]

Can anyone fill us in on what kind of procedures are in place for this airspace?

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

I flew here once. The restictions I remember for (for our North to South transit) "stay over the river, not above 800'".

Also 'around the lady' not below 1500'. IIRC

We stuck to them

[bugg smasher]

JFK, LGA, EWR airports are extremely busy with airliner traffic. Tetorboro, White Plains and god knows what else GA-wise, only add to a barely manageable workload for ATC in the greater New York control area.

The approach corridors over the city are uber-crowded with a precarious mix of heavy jets arriving from all parts of the planet, and green, well-moneyed weekend hobby pilots.



I’m only surprised this didn’t happen sooner.

[wileydog3]

you can't avoid what you can't see. The corridor is narrow so likely no signif bank angles to clear the area., Reports now say the Piper hit the helicopter with the right wing. The helicopter was in a blind spot for the Piper and behind the helicopter the helicopter pilot couldn't see it.,

[bugg smasher]

More's the reason to make New York a TCAS mandatory airspace.

[orbit22]

As one who lives in Manhattan and can see the heli and small fixed wing traffic fly the Hudson VFR corridor, I must say in my opinion we here in NYC have been lucky until today. There is a lot of sightseeing tour traffic with heli tours being offered by many operators: NY Tours, All New York Tours, New York City Tours, US Helicopter, Liberty Helicopters, New York Helicopter, Viatour; are but some of the listings.
If the tour heli lifted off of the 30th street heliport and moved to the westside of the river and headed south while climbing, then the piper also headed south on the suggested west side of the river flying below the max altitude may not have seen him climbing from below his cowling until too late. Some witnesses say the piper banked at the last minute, a left?, exposing his right wing to the blades of the climbing chopper? Early speculation, but points out the weakness of voluntary radio position reports while in the corridor as VFR may not have been sufficient in this set of circumstances, as piper pilot may never have seen heli below and was approaching the climbing heli from above and behind at a greater speed.
I suggest three possibilities: required radio position w/ alt and speed reports at waypoints, required freq monitoring with check in to corridor, and, precise and set tour heli routes well designed with no corners to be cut; for discussion. Harbor traffic has required radio contact and they are going 10-20 knots not 140 knots.

[wileydog3]

It is a VFR corridor and pilots are expected to broadcast position, direction and altitude. But no, they are not in contact necessarily with ATC.

[spacesage]

wileydog3

you can't avoid what you can't see. The corridor is narrow so likely no signif bank angles to clear the area., Reports now say the Piper hit the helicopter with the right wing. The helicopter was in a blind spot for the Piper and behind the helicopter the helicopter pilot couldn't see it.,


Ths is true, it is the cause of so many accidents, blind spots kill. Always clear your blind spots...:(

[keith smith]

Spaceage,
Yes. ADS-B can do this,and so many other things.But to make the most you need both 'in' and 'out', and the latter seems to be on the back-burner.
I saw Blomburg in action, and was impressed. He seemed to do it without any notes.Can't imagine either Mayor of London being that good
Keith

[protectthehornet]

I am in favor of regulating this airspace, calling for a tight ATC clearance for this area...however special radar (to the ground) remote com outlets, and more controllers would be required.

I've flown over this area in airliners (as pilot) and shaken my head at the corridor concept.

There is a similiar corridor over the top of KLAX and I flew there one time and swore never to do it again. (small plane)

as a former cfiimei and current airline pilot, corridors scare the hell out of me.

I do agree that all commercial traffic should have TCAS and all planes should have mode c transponders ON.

I also encourage all pilots to have all lights on in the daytime as well as night to enhance collision avoidance.

and for descending low wing planes, always CLEAR below before the descent...often overlooked.

[wileydog3]

Good thing Bloomberg is Mayor and not BuggSmasher.

and green, well-moneyed weekend hobby pilots.

A sneer with a green twist? Nicely done.

This just in.. because of a fatal accident in NY this past week involving a woman with kids, the State is enacting legislation that forbids women with children driving southbound. No accident reported north bound so they can continue to drive northbound.

[20driver]

This is a topic I can comment on as I live in the area and fly the corridor.

I won't fly the corridor on the weekend, but then I avoid any sight seeing flying on VFR weekends. If you look at mid air stats the majority occur around an airport on a VFR day, almost always on weekends. ASF has a really good report on this.

It really amazes me how many supposed pilots on here are yelling ban it.
In the mega millions of commercial movements in the NYC in the last 50 years how many collisions between GA VFR aircraft and anything but an apartment building?

TCAS - sounds fine except without regular training and pilot proficiency it is not good. (TCAS in helicopters in this airspace I suspect would be quickly turned off) I seem to remember something about that a few years back in Überlingen? Not to mention dumping a lot of cost on GA. Make it so expensive no one can fly, then you will never have a mid air. Sort of like what they are doing in Europe.

Sad to see supposed professional pilots shooting off like politicians.

20driver

[wileydog3]

I agree with Spaceage. Clear. But what if this was his clearing turn to the right which obscured the vision to the left?

This was an accident... a series of uniquely combined variables which created an unfortunate and fatal outcome. But it will draw those who want and believe man can create a perfect world if he just writes enough laws.

[gfunc]

I flew this route in April with 3 pax in a 172. If my memory is up to anything, the procedure is sticking to the west side of the Hudson southbound and east side northbound (like cars on US roads). The NY class B starts at 1,100ft over the river and it was recommended to me to stick above 500ft to be clear of most of the helicopters.

I briefed my pax to do all the sight seeing and picture taking, whilst I did the flying and maintained a lookout. I did the tourist bit via the photos back at home.

The biggest issue I had at the time I flew it was the radio; you are supposed to self announce a brief location and altitude passing landmarks on the map on the common frequency (e.g. Cherokee, Intrepid, southbound at 700 feet). On the day that I flew the tourist chopper pilots were also using the frequency for all sorts of innane chatter (e.g. what's the score at the game etc etc) and requesting fuel from base. It made deciphering where traffic was almost impossible due to the constant drawl.

Gareth.

[gulliBell]

Having a closer look at that tragic pic, is it only everything upstairs of the mast sheared off below the MRH on AS350, or has the whole transmission been ripped off the roof? Perhaps part of a main rotor blade has separated in flight after striking the right wing of piper aircraft, thus causing a massive imbalance and ripping the main transmission and everything attached to it off the AS350's roof. What happened to the piper is clear, the whole right wing has separated from the aircraft.

Anyway, again, not guessing, just wondering.

[Brian Abraham]

Interesting that the pic shows the Left Main Gear is extended on the Piper Saratoga ... I wonder if it had problems?
Report says Cherokee Six, in which case you would be scratching your head if it wasn't extended - has fixed gear.

[Tfor2]

Back in the 70s, I too owned a PA-32 (fixed gear), kept it at Teterboro, and lived in Manhattan. Over several years, it was my pleasure to take friends and visiting relatives VFR out over that corridor to view the majesty of the island. They took the pictures. The rules were strict. On takeoff, report intentions to TEB tower, straight to the GW Bridge, turn South, stay to the right, maintain altitude (1,000 or 800 as I remember), see the passenger ships lined up below on the left, down to and around the Statue of Liberty, wave to the diners at Windows on the World in the South Twin Tower (same altitude) on the way back to the Bridge, and land again at Teterboro. This was and is a famous traditional trip, and a privilege to use safely, always keeping a good lookout of course.

To my mind, helicopters are the culprits. I think they should be treated like power boats treat sail boats. Or cars treat pedestrians. The fixed wing on this corridor should have the right of way, being unable to easily avoid surprise appearances from ... above? Underneath? Behind? Sideways?

C'mon, think about it. DON'T advocate further restrictions on VFR fixed wing flights on this particular trip.

[Sikpilot]

Back in the 70s, I too owned a PA-32 (fixed gear), kept it at Teterboro, and lived in Manhattan. Over several years, it was my pleasure to take friends and visiting relatives VFR out over that corridor to view the majesty of the island. They took the pictures. The rules were strict. On takeoff, report intentions to TEB tower, straight to the GW Bridge, turn South, stay to the right, maintain altitude (1,000 or 800 as I remember), see the passenger ships lined up below on the left, down to and around the Statue of Liberty, wave to the diners at Windows on the World in the South Twin Tower (same altitude) on the way back to the Bridge, and land again at Teterboro. This was and is a famous traditional trip, and a privilege to use safely, always keeping a good lookout of course.

To my mind, helicopters are the culprits. I think they should be treated like power boats treat sail boats. Or cars treat pedestrians. The fixed wing on this corridor should have the right of way, being unable to easily avoid surprise appearances from ... above? Underneath? Behind? Sideways?

C'mon, think about it. DON'T advocate further restrictions on VFR fixed wing flights on this particular trip.


I have been flying helicopters in the Hudson corridor for 20 years and I can tell you it is the fixed wing pilots that are "the culprits". Especially the weekend warriors. Any fixed wing that wants to land at one of the NYC heliports should be able to fly into the corridor, otherwise they should be forced to stay ABOVE 1000 ft and talk to LGA or EWR.

[spacesage]

Fixed wing pilots need to be especially careful when you know you're working in the same airspace as helicopters.

They are small, slow,can fly crazy angles in the sky and are not bound by the laws of physics to use normal runways, taxiways and approach paths.

I fly from a small airport where helicopter movements make up the majority of movements from this airfield. So I am always wide awake when I'm sharing air with fling wings.

I don't believe more rules can solve this problem for good. I do believe constant vigilance and preparedness can help to avoid these hazards.

And then there's fate, if she wants you... thats it.

[PA-28-180]

I've also flown through the VFR corridor over KLAX in a light single. It can be scary, BUT I also requested, and obtained, VFR flight following during that flight. It's not always available, due to controller work load, but it IS something you should at least request. During my flight, I had a king air pass me on the left, and was advised of this traffic both by ATC and the king air - the king air reported "traffic in sight" and passed VFR. It CAN be done and the system DOES work....as long as all parties do their job! :ok:

[AnthonyGA]

Fixed-wing pilots certainly need to be careful, but since fixed-wing has less maneuverability than helicopters, the helicopters carry a greater burden of staying out of the way of other aircraft. If a helicopter moves abruptly into the flight path of a fixed-wing, it may be hard for the fixed-wing to avoid it (although I'm not saying that that happened here). In this case, the helicopter was operating commercial and the private plane was not, so that imposes an additional burden on the helicopter, independently of the aircraft type.

There are always cries to "do something!" from people who react emotionally rather than rationally to current events. Pilots are not immune to this, even when they should know better, as several posts here demonstrate.

I suggest that nothing ever be changed in regulations for at least one year after any accident. This allows most people to overcome their emotions a bit and think with a somewhat clearer head, and it also allows the news media to move on to other stories. By waiting at least a year to "do something," people may realize that nothing really needs to be done.

It's good that Bloomberg is a pilot, but he is surrounded by non-pilots who believe that flying a private plane is an elitist, dangerous sport that should be banned. Commercial air travel is not banned when an airliner crashes because average people want access to air travel and would feel personally constrained if it disappeared, but only one person in 500 is a private pilot, so most people don't care about private, general aviation and wouldn't miss it if it were gone, so they are happy to ban it.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Te_Kahu]

A New Zealander was flying the helicopter which collided with a plane over New York's Hudson River.

Nine people are presumed dead following the crash at 4am today (NZ Time).

Liberty Helicopters said the pilot was Jeremy Clark, 33, who had been living in New Jersey, the New York Times reported.

Mr Clark's aunt told One News his parents had gone to Auckland Airport this evening, hoping to travel to New York.

A Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman said it had not received a request for help.

It was believed Mr Clark's sightseeing helicopter, carrying five Italian tourists, was hit from behind by a small private plane carrying three people, including a child.

Debris was scattered across the water and thousands of people on the waterfront were forced to scamper for cover.

A helicopter pilot refuelling on the ground at the Liberty Tours heliport saw the plane approaching the helicopter and tried to radio an alert to the pilots, police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said. The warning wasn't heard, or didn't happen in time.

"He radioed the accident helicopter and told him, 'One-lima-hotel, you have a fixed wing behind you'," National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Deborah Hersman said on Saturday.

"There was no response."



Part of a story from the New Zealand Herald.

Kiwi pilot in New York air collision - National - NZ Herald News (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10589658)

[Lightning6]

IMHO, I wonder if the chopper being black may have been a problem with the Cessna pilot not seeing it, it being a routine trip up the Hudson, would it not be better if it were painted in a more prominent colour?

[Jetstream2008]

It is being reported by the Daily Mail on-line that the PA-32 had engine failure.

"The plane, a Piper PA-32, took off from Teterboro airport and reported engine failure before hitting the helicopter."

'Nine dead' after helicopter and plane collide over Hudson River | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1205189/Nine-dead-helicopter-plane-collide-Hudson-River.html?ITO=1490)

[Aireps]

IMHO, I wonder if the chopper being black may have been a problem with the Cessna pilot not seeing it, it being a routine trip up the Hudson, would it not be better if it were painted in a more prominent colour?
The Netherlands airforce painted their Pilatus PC-7 basic trainers black a couple of years ago, because research had shown that black aircraft are better visible against a daylight sky than other colours.

Regards,
Frits

[FH1100 Pilot]

Report says Cherokee Six, in which case you would be scratching your head if it wasn't extended - has fixed gear.

Turns out the Piper was N71MC, which is a PA-32R - the "R" indicating that it was a retractable gear Lance. So the extended landing gear is a puzzle, yes.

[chester2005]

I Flew with Jeremy many times when he was working for LA Helicopters in Long Beach.
He was a consumate professional and an all round Very nice guy.
We had some good times on the ground and in the air.
He will be missed by many.

Life can be short RIP all involved

Chester:sad::sad:

[captjns]

Procedures for all aircraft flying over the Hudson and East Rivers.

http://skyvector.com/ (http://skyvector.com/)


Flight Planning and Aeronautical Charts at SkyVector.com (http://skyvector.com/#51-119-3-2480-1257)

[captjns]

... and bugg smasher says... "More's the reason to make New York a TCAS mandatory airspace."

One less chance for a mid air as long as you don't wonder into the Hudson VFR corridor:ok:.

[Mike744]

Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=7981701&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/)

[MikeMike]

Condolences to the freinds and families what a tragedy and on the Hudson of all places.

[alouette]

The photo is frightening:uhoh:

[kookabat]

black aircraft are better visible against a daylight sky

But not necessarily against built-up areas....

[topendtorque]

The photo is frightening

exceedingly so, a terrible thing for those poor souls, and now their rellies behind, I am sorry.

May I ask, how on earth does a fixed wing and a helicopter get to fly at the same altitude in regulated airspace? if this is so, one can hardly apportion blame to either party were they within regulated altitude, NO, the regulators need to answer the question.

It is usually impossible to see another object below the horizon, now if that object is travelling at considerably slower airspeed than an approaching airplane, then the outcome is predictable for those on clonflicting fight paths.

Separation to accomadate that simple logic was something that I learnt when doing my commercial at Long Beach, where R/W - F/W separation was mandated.

Much different from the 'auld' established pommie burocracy of the OZ system at the time.

Long Beach then, (1979) was the busiest light aircraft hub in the world. I reckoned, if its good enough for them then its good enough for us anytime.

I instigated severe reprimands for anyone that I flew with who was in conflict with that simple logic upon my return.

I have yet to be rebuked by ATC, FOI's or anyone, even so I still see old helicopter fuddy duddies taxi out to the active runway and ask for a T/O clearance on that active runway line.

Worse still I see them operate the full circuit in old ships like '47's at forty to sixty knots when twins, jets etc are all operating in the same circuit.

And guess what? they can't land on the grass like the helicopter can.

Why has this failed in New York? Has it the potential to fail in a multitude of other high traffic density areas all over the world?

Once again a terrible and needless tradegy.

[BigEndBob]

Wouldn't it be simpler to restrict heli's to not above 500 feet and fixed wing not below 800 feet?

Don't know many heli pilots that are comfortable above 500 feet!

Could never understand all this rubbish about dark aircraft being more visible.
Possibly at altitude, but always hard to see al the low level military stuff.

[Von Klinkerhoffen]

Interesting that the pic shows the Left Main Gear is extended on the Piper Saratoga ... I wonder if it had problems?


Turns out the Piper was N71MC, which is a PA-32R - the "R" indicating that it was a retractable gear Lance. So the extended landing gear is a puzzle, yes.

The gear is held in the 'up' position hydraulically by a hydraulic power pack . With the right wing seperated and the hydraulic lines now open , the remaining legs are free to come out of their bays and extend due to gravity/gyroscopic forces .

Having taken that helicopter trip in the past , the photo's are truely frightening....very tragic .

[JimBall]

Two extra things emerged from reports. The plane had called an engine failure before the incident. And another Liberty pilot on the ground refuelling saw the plane heading for the helicopter and called on the RT to warn the heli.

These VFR corridors really are a problem. This is exactly the same type of incident that could happen in, for instance, the Manchester Low Level. That location is made worse by ultralight/flexwing traffic not showing up on radar and the very low 1250 QNH alt.

I've heard there is a plan being looked into - some sort of vertical separation applied to north & southbound traffic.

[Phil77]

TET: super plan! The wreakage hasn't been recovered yet and the circumstances not clear. Also let's ignore decades of safe operation and call for more regulation right away! :ugh:

[PaperTiger]

Wouldn't it be simpler to restrict heli's to not above 500 feet and fixed wing not below 800 feet?In some parts of the corridor (near EWR) the ceiling is 500', but higher where this happened.

The point about rotary-wing umm... variable flightpaths is well made. I've had a couple pop up waaay too close for comfort. I'd place the responsibility for separation on the NYC operators, employ someone on the ground to monitor traffic instead of just blasting off into the sky.

On another note, the Idiot Schumer is at it again: Senator Calls For Hudson Corridor Closure, ADIZ-Like Rules (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/briefs/187749-1.html)

[pweaver]

From Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com) :

http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/1987/hudson1.jpg

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/3673/hudson2.jpg

[handbag]

For anyone who didn't see the announcement at the top of opening forum page, here's the link. Take a look at number 3 please guys. Let's all try to appreciate this forum for being the amazing technical resource that it is.

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads-23/announcements.html

[stepwilk]

May I ask, how on earth does a fixed wing and a helicopter get to fly at the same altitude in regulated airspace? if this is so, one can hardly apportion blame to either party were they within regulated altitude, NO, the regulators need to answer the question.

Unless something I don't know about has changed (which is possible, since I grounded myself about 10 years ago), it's not "regulated airspace." It is a narrow, VFR, see-and-avoid corridor under and through regulated airspace. I used to fly it all the time, and the only "regulations" were that you stay under 1,200 feet and above 500 (or 1,000 if you're close to the shore) and within the shoreline boundaries. There's an informal rule that everybody "keep right"--southbound traffic on the Jersey side, northbound on the Manhattan side.

As far as I know, flight following by ATC is at the pilot's discretion.

[FH1100 Pilot]

Wow, stepwilk, or Stephan Wilkinson, the former Editor of FLYING Magazine and writer for CAR & DRIVER? Welcome to our forum. It's an honor!

You're correct that the Hudson River Corridor is "unregulated," apart from any other regulations applicable to such airspace that exists outside of Class A, B, C or D. No clearance required, nor a need to talk to anyone - just a suggestion to self-announce on the appropriate freq, and of course the requirement of a transponder since you're under the Mode C veil.

One minor nit is that the corridor only extends up to 1100 feet.

[Phil77]

Stepwilk: Your observation is correct. I have been in and out of the city too - in both helicopters and fixed wing - and can say, that if everybody observes the rules stated by you, operations are safe.
I have actually observed/encountered many more close calls on uncontrolled airfields than in the Hudson River corridor.

Calling for more regulation because of one tragic accident is a knee-jerk reaction usually proposed by politicians/media, not by professionals.

See and avoid works pretty good in my experience. I agree that over a populated area its hard to spot traffic below the horizon, but over the hudson you have mostly water in the backdrop, so it is pretty easy to spot traffic. Rules are in place already and observed by almost everybody: right "lane" traffic, if you depart a heliport give way to traffic - it's actually like road traffic and you wouldn't question the worldwide traffic rules just because one truck driver rear-ended another because he was distracted or his brakes failed.

[slowrotor]

The only way to prevent midair collisions in my opinion is this:
We need special goggles or eye glasses that can highlight traffic to enhance our normal vision.
It could work with the ADS-B to track each aircraft position in space. But instead of staring at the panel, the pilot would be looking outside.

And traffic on the left side, for example, would alert the pilot with a sound in the left headphone. Then the pilot would turn his head left and see the traffic with his enhanced vision glasses.

Anything less than this for NextGen is a waste of time, money and lives.
slowrotor

[Gordy]

slowrotor....

The only way to prevent midair collisions....

I will give you another way to make a huge start..... I was coming out of your neck of the woods, (Darrington, WA) yesterday and went nose to nose with an R-44. I tried calling on 123.02 and 123.90 (the CTAF for Darrington), with no luck. He was flying along the powerlines on the left side---wrong. I am guessing you are working in the industry up there...maybe you could start to spread the word up there to the flight schools in Washington......

[Sawbones62]

If you consider how many aircraft use the SFRAs and VFR corridors, this is a very unusual accident.

May have been a tough setup for see-and-avoid - both a/c flying south towards the sun, silver-gray helo climbing in front of a low wing airplane, ground clutter, probably lots of Saturday chatter on CTAF...

What I find really sad is that a TSO-C166a (ADS-B) authorized transponder might have saved the day - for the PA-32R it probably would have cost ~ $3500. I highly recommend the upgrade even if you don't fly near Class B - I can read the traffic around me well on the screen of my GNS530W and usually see it well before ATC calls it out.

[topendtorque]

Unless something I don't know about has changed (which is possible, since I grounded myself about 10 years ago), it's not "regulated airspace." It is a narrow, VFR, see-and-avoid corridor under and through regulated airspace

I appreciate what you are saying stepwilk, and a warm howdy to you to, is that the traffic in the corridor is not actively "controlled".

What I am saying tho' is that it is "regulated" that the traffic "has" to fly within "the" corridor, therefore it is regulated to do so, and dangerous as proven, as are airport traffic procedures at non controlled airports for fast and slow aircraft conflict.

Another such corridor is the VFR route across the middle of LAX, Now that's a right spooky place, unless rules have changed.

A small ob on the way past is that a Lance, Saratoga or whatever once established in EOL mode will be flying at a slower IAS than the discussed helicopter in cruise mode.

We have a CAO here where VFR helicopters are "allowed" to depart non standard procedures and ask for same at controlled airports. In my mind it would be so refreshing to see that procedure described with a far higher degree of imperitive, you know "you will if possible" rather than 'you may'.

It's something that the safety foundations 'could' or more correctly, to follow my logic, "should ' zero in on.
cheers tet

[Tfor2]

I have been flying helicopters in the Hudson corridor for 20 years and I can tell you it is the fixed wing pilots that are "the culprits". Especially the weekend warriors. Any fixed wing that wants to land at one of the NYC heliports should be able to fly into the corridor, otherwise they should be forced to stay ABOVE 1000 ft and talk to LGA or EWR.

So this helicopter professional feels that it is OK for a fixed wing to land at a heliport. Somebody let him know that a fixed wing needs a minimum of about 2,000 feet to land and take off anywhere. He needs to get his head out of his helicopter world.
Also, let it be noted that it is reported that the helicopter took off from its base BEHIND the Piper, yet the Piper is reported to have ploughed into the helicopter which appeared in FRONT of it. If this turns out to be true, then the helicopter must have overtaken the Piper from below, and popped up in front of the Piper. That is a scary thought for any fixed wing pilot, especially a VFR amateur taking a kid out for a weekend memory flight.

[birrddog]

According to the NTSB's latest conference the Piper was cleared to from Teterboro after taking off from 19 to contact Newark (and thus not to enter the VFR corridor).

Newark contacted Teterboro to inform them the Piper had not contacted them, and asked them to contact the Piper and advise them to head 220 and contact Newark.

TEB advised they could not get hold of the Piper and that they had lost radar contact.

From the above it appears the Piper had not planned / (requested to depart TEB airspace) to enter the VFR corridor and that for intents and purposes it should not have been operating there.

Clearly in an emergency situation a pilot may use discretion as to how they deal with the situation, and busting of airspace in the process, which would hopefully explain why the Piper was in the corridor.

Hopefully this should be enough information to those claiming this corridor and or helicopter operations is the reason for this incident to back off and wait for a report, though in reality I doubt this will occur.

If it was a result of an emergency of the Piper then there would have been an incident in the corridor regardless of whether or not it was closed to VFR see and avoid, self announce traffic, just without helicopters getting a bad rap in the process.

An unfortunate incident none-the-less.

[MikeNYC]

IMHO, I wonder if the chopper being black may have been a problem with the Cessna pilot not seeing it, it being a routine trip up the Hudson, would it not be better if it were painted in a more prominent colour?

The helicopter was not painted black... the accident helicopter, N401LH, was silver (pics (http://jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?regsearch=N401LH&view=true)).

Also, the fixed wing was a Piper low wing, not a Cessna as the quote mentioned...

[birrddog]

So this helicopter professional feels that it is OK for a fixed wing to land at a heliport. Somebody let him know that a fixed wing needs a minimum of about 2,000 feet to land and take off anywhere. He needs to get his head out of his helicopter world.

I think you failed to read between the lines in the post.


Also, let it be noted that it is reported that the helicopter took off from its base BEHIND the Piper, yet the Piper is reported to have ploughed into the helicopter which appeared in FRONT of it. If this turns out to be true, then the helicopter must have overtaken the Piper from below, and popped up in front of the Piper. That is a scary thought for any fixed wing pilot, especially a VFR amateur taking a kid out for a weekend memory flight.

If you believe what the NTSB recently stated in the latest news conference, what I summarized in my post in Rotorheads and made an observation:
According to the NTSB's latest conference the Piper was cleared to from Teterboro after taking off from 19 to contact Newark (and thus not to enter the VFR corridor).

Newark contacted Teterboro to inform them the Piper had not contacted them, and asked them to contact the Piper and advise them to head 220 and contact Newark.

TEB advised they could not get hold of the Piper and that they had lost radar contact.

From the above it appears the Piper had not planned / (requested to depart TEB airspace) to enter the VFR corridor and that for intents and purposes it should not have been operating there.

Clearly in an emergency situation a pilot may use discretion as to how they deal with the situation, and busting of airspace in the process, which would hopefully explain why the Piper was in the corridor.

Hopefully this should be enough information to those claiming this corridor and or helicopter operations is the reason for this incident to back off and wait for a report, though in reality I doubt this will occur.

If it was a result of an emergency of the Piper then there would have been an incident in the corridor regardless of whether or not it was closed to VFR see and avoid, self announce traffic, just without helicopters getting a bad rap in the process.

An unfortunate incident none-the-less.From the above we have the facts (from the NTSB) that the Piper should not have been in the corridor - so you can't blame helicopters operating correctly and legally for the incident.

As to what the Piper was doing there we can only speculate at this stage and will need to wait until the NTSB has had the time to perform the appropriate analysis and release a report.

In the mean time please refrain from comments that are derogatory to the people who use this airspace or to the professionals and clients who were impacted by this incident.

[Lightning6]

The helicopter was not painted black... the accident helicopter, N401LH, was silver (pics (http://jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?regsearch=N401LH&view=true)).

Looking at the previously posted pics it looked pretty black to me, may have been resprayed.

[twinstar_ca]

tfor2 needs to take his own advice for helicopters.. you have such a bias towards them.. we ALL know you can't land fixed wing at a heliport... sheesh...

get back to the point that's it's see and be seen in the vfr world and EVERYONE has a responsilbility to make posit reports... :suspect:

[Sikpilot]

So this helicopter professional feels that it is OK for a fixed wing to land at a heliport. Somebody let him know that a fixed wing needs a minimum of about 2,000 feet to land and take off anywhere. He needs to get his head out of his helicopter world.
Also, let it be noted that it is reported that the helicopter took off from its base BEHIND the Piper, yet the Piper is reported to have ploughed into the helicopter which appeared in FRONT of it. If this turns out to be true, then the helicopter must have overtaken the Piper from below, and popped up in front of the Piper. That is a scary thought for any fixed wing pilot, especially a VFR amateur taking a kid out for a weekend memory flight.

I guess you didn't get the sarcasm. Since the fixed wing planes CAN'T land at the heliports, they shouldn't be below 1000 ft. I always wonder where the planes I see at 500 ft are going to land when they lose an engine.

[Loerie]

When all is done,looks,at least at this point,as pure pilot error on one or either side,despite possible engine failure .Terrible shame and what a shock to folks visiting the shores of the great US.I guess the clock just ticked over...
Rest In Peace.

[Tfor2]

A web search turned up another collision between a Piper and a helicopter back in April 1991 over Merion, Pennsylvania, when they got too close to each other (the helicopter was inspecting the landing gear of the Piper.) A rotor hit the fixed wing, and 6 people got killed, including Senator John Heinz.

What's of possibly helpful interest here is this analysis: A review of the literature on the aerodynamic interaction between fixed and rotary-wing aircraft in close proximity notes that there are two distinct and potentially hazardous aerodynamic concerns: (1) turbulence-induced blade stall and settling experienced by rotary-wing aircraft while flying in the turbulent area behind and below a fixed-wing aircraft, and (2) opposing pitch changes experienced by both aircraft when one flies close behind and below another.

The textbook Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators specifically refers to the case of one aircraft inspecting the landing gear of another. The lower aircraft may experience a nose-up pitching moment and the higher aircraft, a nose-down pitching moment. The author states that the opposing pitch-moment changes can be large and must be anticipated or a collision may result.

I wonder how many pilots today know about this hazard and whether it is included as part of their training.

[IntheTin]

I wonder how many pilots today know about this hazard and whether it is included as part of their training.

What!!! Yeah, this is practised everyday.......:hmm:

[Phil77]

sigh! ...that's what you get when merging threads from the Rumors and News section.

Dear Tfor2: you have now released your second statement exposing your lack of knowledge; although newbies are usually welcome and we are eager to help, this is still a professional pilots rumor network. I suggest you lurk a while and read up on the topic before you post...
May I find a good analogy? Its like you describe the effects of aquaplaning to a professional car/truck/racing driver.

[JohnDixson]

( My comments are based upon the limited exposure to the Paris and London heli-route structure and procedures obtained during a number of Paris and Farnborough Airshow demo flying trips. Certainly, especially during the Paris Airshow weeks, the helicopter traffic in and around Paris is tremendous. )

London and Paris have taken a positive control ( meaning a mode C transponder ) approach to the subject of helicopter operations within a busy city center area. My experience is that they have been efficient and courteous, they DO insist upon following their rules, and all in all it was easy to operate within their system.

Perhaps it is appropriate to apply this approach to both the helo and the GA fixed wing community in the NYC area.

Thanks,
John Dixson

[Tfor2]

although newbies are usually welcome and we are eager to help, this is still a professional pilots rumor network.

This is the sort of elitist b/s this site doesn't need. The word "professional" can mean you are paid to do what you do. It can also mean that a level of competency is achieved by training and a license. I'd say this site is for all of us who have training and a license, and may or may not be flying for a living. If we don't want it read by others, it should be easy to keep the media and public out. But notice everybody gets to read it.

A "professional" helicopter pilot and a private pilot collided in publicly owned airspace. Let's just give the helicopter guys a voice here? I don't think so, Phil77. Let's hear from others on this subject.:=

[mary meagher]

Sharing airspace with helicopters requires special care and vigilance.

Is it not the case that if a helicopter suffers engine failure, there is an optimum height for autorotation? I understood this to be c. 700 feet.....

That makes it difficult to ask the helis to cruise at 500 feet to maintain any separation from fixed wing, below 1,000 or whatever the corridor maximum may be.

Could the answer possibly be to INCREASE the Maximum ceiling for the Hudson River corridor - I bet the Jet traffic doesn't really use very much below 4,000 feet or so. Then ask the fix wing to keep to the right between
1,000 and 2,500 feet, and the helis to remain below that.

But I don't know much about it except from dodging heli's in my glider . . . .
there's always one or two every day flying over our winch site! (cables up to 2,000'.)

[Gordy]

Mary,

Is it not the case that if a helicopter suffers engine failure, there is an optimum height for autorotation? I understood this to be c. 700 feet.....NO, it is NOT the case.

[rick1128]

Having operated into the NY area for many years, maybe I can give a little insight to some of the items that are currently being discussed on this thread. Currently, I am flying a Cessna 206 Amphibian into the East River on a regular basis. It has been my experience, that the float and helicopter guys are communicating their positions and intentions very well. And everyone works together.

First: The exclusions go up to 1100 ft MSL to give IFR traffic adequate vertical spacing. You have IFR traffic arriving, departing and being vectored into LGA, JFK, EWR and TEB.

Second: TCAS would be a total waste as most of the pilots that regularly fly into the exclusions would turn the unit off because they are getting way too many false warnings. And yes they would be getting several per flight.

Three: If you look at the terminal chart, there is a note that the helicopter routes are on the back. When you look at that chart, it only shows a small portion of the routing with a note that gives the frequencies and advises that traffic is responsible for see and avoid. The helicopter chart for that area, shows more detail and gives more information.

As for ADS-B, I think that TIS would be a quicker. viable option, for the immediate future.

The option of limiting helicopter altitudes is a problem as the operators are trying to vary the altitudes due to noise complaints.

More ATC control of the area would make the current situation much worst. Due to the buildings there is little or no radar coverage.

Based on the information so far, if the Piper did have an emergency, to me it appears that everyone was at the wrong place at the wrong time. If it was an engine failure, the helicopter pilot, IF he did see the Piper, didn't know of the airplane's situation and operated the helicopter based on the information he had.

The biggest issue is that EVERYONE that operates in these exclusions needs to understand the rules and procedures and follow them. Plus communicate clearly position and intentions.

As for the taxi driver remark, I have ridden in NYC taxis. Tightly regulated? NOT!!!

[robertbartsch]

Fox pics are interesting. As a survivor of a '79 crash involving a Cesna 150 w/ no power over water (Tampa Bay) and a resident of NYC for >15 years, this still photo brings back some bad memories.

The Yankee crash of a fixed wing into an apartment bulding in 06 was one city block away from my previous home on the East River.

NYC air space seems too crowded to me, so I would favor some sensable restrictions.

[toptobottom]

...so I would favor some sensible restrictions

OK, so not NYC, but on a recent business trip to Las Vegas I hired an R44 and flew over the Hoover dam, down the Colorado and then , after dark, did three orbits of the Stratosphere hotel before flying down 'The Strip' and back to the airfield. I must have counted 20 other machines do the same thing in the immediate vicinity and throughout the entire flight I received nothing more than an acknowledgment when i first announced myself to the ATC.

I was shocked when I was told that if I had an R22 license, I could fly any machine if I could convince the owner would throw [me] the keys. I could also fly over a built up area in a single engined machine and then do all of this all at night - all with no extra qualifications or training!!

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...

[Phil77]

Tfor2: A "professional" helicopter pilot and a private pilot collided in publicly owned airspace. Let's just give the helicopter guys a voice here? I don't think so, Phil77. Let's hear from others on this subject.

I didn't say that. But obviously your are speculating on unverified reports - show me the report which states he overtook that Piper and then lets verify that before we jump to conclusions.
Secondly you are lecturing about aerodynamics you apparently know nothing about.
Nobody here has a problem explaining even the most basic principles of helicopter flight if being asked, but I suspect unfounded speculation on issues that have nothing to do with the accident at hand (i.e. downwash, vortex generation, settling with power) is not what your "other people" appreciate.

I rest my case, back on topic please.

[Phil77]

There was only one midair collision between a police helicopter and a seaplane (1983) since the first helicopter landing in 1949. Millions of safe takeoffs and landings in between.

I thought I mention this safety record.

[Gordy]

toptobottom

It was clear to me that the US needs far tighter control over who can fly what and when;

Where are you from? I am guessing the UK....so you are probably one of the ones who always complain about the CAA and their regulations....and now you want to impose those same restrictions on us over here...... Please don't.

As for your flight in Vegas...with an "R-22" license this implies a non FAA license...which means that all the restrictions on your foreign license apply...i.e. if you cannot fly at night on it--you cannot do that here. The 20 helicopters were all probably on a set path that you "may or may not have" flown right through.

I flew tours in Hawaii for many years...to the casual observer, it would appear that it was a mess....however, I flew with 26 other helicopters on a 14 mile radius island every day with no near misses and NO ATC. We all went to the same spots on the island, but we had procedures. Thankfully, there were no helicopters to rent on the island, so it was just the professionals.

[protectthehornet]

some have mentioned TCAS and that it would not be effective in this environment

simply put,placing the TCAS in TA mode might be the way to go. At least you would get an alert, altitude and even though you are not supposed to use the bearings, a bearing idea where to look.

nothing is perfect and it will take a number of steps to improve things.

I DO ASK THIS...ARE there any photos that show the piper's landing light to be illuminated?

Same with the copter?

I always tell my pals who fly in this area to have ALL LIGHTS ON...might save your life!!!!

[Twiddle]

I was shocked when I was told that if I had an R22 license, I could fly any machine if I could convince the owner would throw [me] the keys. I could also fly over a built up area in a single engined machine and then do all of this all at night - all with no extra qualifications or training!!


Is that the case? I'd have thought that you were still under the restrictions of your UK license unless you get an FAA piggyback? (Not sure why but I thought you had a UK license, now I'm not so sure?)

I.e. night only if you have a night rating, R44 only if you have that type rating etc?

[Paul Cantrell]

I'll wade in as someone who occasionally flies this corridor. It's probably best avoided by inexperienced pilots, but my experience is that the helicopter pilots - including the Liberty Helicopter pilots - are extremely professional about making position reports and practicing see and avoid. You also have the option of flying a little higher and talking with Tower, and I've done that occasionally when traffic in the corridor is very busy.

I think that making the airspace positive control would simply put a strict limit on the amount of traffic that would be able to operate in this airspace. While that might make things a little safer, I don't believe the safety record in this airspace really requires that sort of approach. My personal feeling is leave the airspace alone, and continue to warn people to be alert and be careful out there.

[Machaca]

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/HudsonHeli-chart2z.jpg


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/HudsonHeli-chart3z.jpg


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/HudsonHeli-chart3a.jpg


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/HudsonHeli-chart3b.jpg


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/HudsonHeli-chart3c.jpg

[toptobottom]

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

[birrddog]

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.

[Nubian]

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.

[RVDT]

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Auckland_mid-air_collision)

1992 Fox Glacier mid-air collision (http://www.taic.org.nz/AviationReports/tabid/78/ctl/Detail/mid/482/InvNumber/1992-011/Page/23/Default.aspx)

[wideman]

I am flying a Cessna 206 Amphibian into the East River on a regular basis.

Sounds like you need to work on the flare a bit.

[Gordy]

toptoottom.

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 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.

[chopjock]

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.:ugh: 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.:ok: (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? :)

[Flying Lawyer]

toptobottom 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... 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: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.
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

[protectthehornet]

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.

[Kulwin Park]

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?

[toptobottom]

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: 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. 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

[chuks]

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.

[topendtorque]

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

[s1lverback]

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:}

[visibility3miles]

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.

[robertbartsch]

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.

[visibility3miles]

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.

Correct. You want to ditch with landing gear UP. If they are down, you run the risk of ripping them off, which increases the chance of sinking faster. Also gear down increases the chance of flipping and cartwheeling.

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.

[wileydog3]

Toptobottom 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...

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 :E)

[Tfor2]

I suggest you lurk a while and read up on the topic before you post...

Phil77 accused me of lecturing, says I should read up on subjects I know nothing about.

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 (http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/2005/sp0512.html)

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. :)

[birrddog]

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)

Unless you have been listening to different reports from the NTSB, the only way the Piper had a "right to be in that corridor", as you put it, would have been in an emergency situation.

The Piper was cleared from Teterboro to Newark, so unless you know something that you are not sharing with the rest of us, the Piper did not have a right to be in the corridor unless it was an in-flight emergency.

[protectthehornet]

while it really doesn't matter

I remind you that an airplane/aircraft in distress has the right of way over all other aircraft.

some of you have said that something was wrong with the piper//don't really know.

ps

birrddog...to my knowlege, the piper was not given a clearance for anything, other than takeoff from TEB.

we must be accurate in our use of words. a clearance is a very specific thing.

[Tfor2]

Yes I do know something and obviously you don't. Who do we believe, you, or this report from the AP?

Air traffic control transcripts described Monday indicate a worry-free exchange between controllers at Teterboro, in New Jersey, and the plane's pilot, Steven Altman, who was told he could pick his flight path toward Ocean City, where he was flying after picking up his brother Daniel Altman and teenage nephew Douglas Altman.
The air traffic controller at Teterboro Airport gave him two choices: Head down the river, or take a southwest tack.
When a Teterboro controller asked the pilot if he wanted to go down the river or head southwest, he responded by saying: "Either."
"Let me know," the controller said.
"OK, tell you what," Altman replied, "I'll take down the river."

[birrddog]

If you quote, please quote the full story, continuing on from what you posted.

Hersman said controllers at Teterboro at some point told Altman to switch radio frequencies so Newark controllers could communicate with him, but Newark never made contact, she said.

The VFR corridor stops at 1100 MSL, above that is controlled airspace and why he needed to switch over to Newark.

Anyway, these are not the full transcripts, so we don't know everything that was said, and exact clearances given.

[Gordy]

toptobottom

We probably agree on more than you think.

I guess my responses keep getting deleted for some reason... Have NO clue why? Censorship at its best I guess.

Maybe the moderator who deleted my post could kindly let me know why.........


Gordy,

Your (and other) posts discussing operations over Las Vegas were removed as being off topic. Moderation, not censorship: staying on topic is the solution.

Senior Pilot

[Flying Lawyer]

toptobottom I don't know a single UK citizen who secretly wants to be a member of a 'nanny state'
I don't know a single UK citizen who admits it.

.

[Tfor2]

The VFR corridor stops at 1100 MSL, above that is controlled airspace and why he needed to switch over to Newark.

Nothing indicates he was above 1100 MSL, he was not in controlled airspace, and therefore he didn't "need" to switch over to Newark, until he was ready to call them. Certainly he would have made the switch immediately, because TEB had terminated their communication with him, but he was not "handed off", and Newark would not necessarily register his presence until he contacted them.

There is the possibility that he had reason to return to TEB, and was making a 180. In which case he would advise TEB and Newark as he returned. In the absence of a flight recorder, we could never know.

[widgeon]

PE.com | Southern California News | News for Inland Southern California (http://www.pe.com/ap_news/California/US_Mid_Air_Collision_Pilot_432008C.shtml)

So sad.

Hudson crash helicopter pilot flew tourists, VIPs

By BETH DeFALCO
The Associated Press
TRENTON, N.J.
The helicopter pilot killed in last weekend's mid-air collision above the Hudson River routinely flew tourists and VIPs around the Manhattan skyline.
But those who knew Jeremy Clarke said the 32-year-old from New Zealand was more likely to talk about his wedding plans or about recently becoming a U.S. citizen than the celebrities and public figures who often sat beside him in the cockpit.
Some took notice of him, though.
"He seemed like a very nice guy and a great pilot," said five-time Olympic swimmer Dara Torres, who recognized Clarke as the pilot who flew her and her 3-year-old daughter on a sightseeing tour of Manhattan two days before Clarke's helicopter collided with a small plane over the Hudson River.
Five Italian tourists were aboard Clarke's helicopter when it crashed Saturday. Two men and a boy from a Pennsylvania family were in a single-engine Piper when the aircraft collided and plummeted to the water below the congested flyway. All nine people died.
Ernie Keil, a close family friend who knew Clarke since birth, said the pilot was a consummate professional who would only occasionally mentioned some of the VIPs he ferried, such as the road crew for pop star Beyonce, or talk show host Geraldo Rivera.
"He used to fly him quite a bit," Keil said of Rivera, recalling a story Clarke told recently: "There was a thunderstorm, and they had to land until it blew over, and they spent some time together just talking."
By all accounts, Clarke was an excellent pilot.
According to Liberty Tours in New York, where he worked for the past year and a half, Clarke logged 3,100 hours flying helicopters including 850 in the Eurocopter he was piloting Saturday.
He received his license in 2004 in California, and worked for Los Angeles Helicopters from 2005 to 2007 as a pilot and instructor.
"He was an excellent instructor. He didn't let you be scared of anything as far as the maneuvers," said Los Angeles Helicopters general manager Kim Orahoske, who trained under Clarke.
Born in New Zealand, Clarke moved to California around 2000. For a while, he worked as a greenskeeper at the Beverly Hills Country Club.
"But he always wanted to be a helicopter pilot," Keil said. "That's when he decided to go to school for it."
He moved to New Jersey in 2007 and was living in Lanoka Harbor with his fiancee, 29-year-old Danielle Granahan, who works for Jet Blue. The couple had planned to wed next August, Keil said.
Happy with his career, Clarke told Keil he was ready to move on to the next phase of his life during a trip to Arizona a month ago. He was looking to buy a home in the Phoenix suburb of Scottsdale.
"He was ready to make a move, and settle down and raise a family," Keil said. "The reason he came out was to visit me and do a little house shopping."
Keil said Clarke also wanted to be closer to family members in California. His parents and sister still live in New Zealand. They arrived in New Jersey on Sunday.
"His love of flying walked hand-in-hand with his dedication as a professional, winning the respect and admiration of his peers within the commercial aviation industry," Clarke's family said in a written statement released Tuesday.
"It is the great hope of this family that through this tragedy lessons will be learned, and new regulatory provisions within the aviation industry will emerge that will prevent future loss of life to our loved ones and the loved ones of others."

[topendtorque]

Yes it certainly is very sad,

However the reporter turned out a well researched and very complimentary article. One can feel the strength of the report when she warms to the high calibre of her subject, congratulations to Beth DeFalco.

Jeremy's folks back home will take some comfort from the commendations of his peers, as will his fiance in years to come. Just now of course will be very hard and I feel for her dearly.

Danielle must remember that Jeremy was obviously a good and steady professional; with a great love of family.

I do sincerely hope that a higher degree of airspace management will result, see and avoid in heavy congestion is always chancy. That must be improved.

Our lives should be ruled by choice, not chance.

[Tfor2]

When flying VFR and in radio communication, it is important for readers to distinguish between clearances and instructions and advisories. After take-off, a VFR pilot in uncontrolled airspace is mostly involved with advisory communications with ATC, much of them initiated by the pilot as requests or questions or intentions, as long as he is not violating rules. ATC is usually very busy controlling commercial traffic. The facts as we know them in this case seem to be that ATC was available for the plane's communications, after his clearance at take-off. Of course, they never came.

[FH1100 Pilot]

Tfor2, there is no way ATC would have handled the Piper down the corridor. As he approached the river, all that pilot would have heard from a controller was, "Numerous targets in the exclusion at your eleven to two o'clock, 1100 feet and below, radarserviceterminatedsquawkVFRfrequencychangeapprovedbyebye ."

That Piper had every right to be in the exclusion. But it is very hard to see an aircraft ahead of and below you, especially against a built-up background like NYC. Especially an aircraft that is slower than you and climbing up into your flight path.

The helicopter pilot had a duty to scan the sky for traffic as he took off, turned southbound and climbed. We may never know if the Piper would have been visible to the Liberty pilot as the Saratoga came over the little hill on the Jersey side of the river. Perhaps someone will reconstruct the two flights like they did with the two ENG helicopters in the Phoenix, Arizona mid-air, which might give us some more insight into this one.

It's a busy corridor. I flew tours up there for a while, many moons ago. I've also flown up and down the corridor in fixed-wing planes. And I sure had my share of close-calls. As helicopters are among the slowest of the aircraft in that area, I used to press for better strobe lighting on the *rear* of our helicopters (TCAS had not been invented yet). Those pleas always fell on deaf ears.

Currently, my normal commute to work in the car involves a one-hour drive on fairly flat, fairly straight, two-lane country/farm roads with 55 mph speed limits (and most of us do 60 or a little better). Not long ago, there was a head-on collision on the road I take every day that killed two young people in one car and an older guy in a pickup truck. The young girl driving the car inexplicably crossed the line. The old guy wasn't able to avoid her.

I think about this collision often as I drive those very same roads, sometimes on my motorcycle. If someone were to veer even slightly into my lane at a 120 mph closure rate, I might not have time to get out of the way. But there is no "safer" way for me to get to work. It's all backroads.

Accidents like this NYC mid-air are always tragic. But at the end of the day, they are just that - fluke accidents. Let's not make more of this than it is.

My heart goes out to all involved.

[The Sultan]

msnbc.com has a movie of the collision explains most of it.

The Sultan

[darrenphughes]

Found this video tonight.

NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams: News and videos from the evening broadcast NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams: News and videos from the evening broadcast- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#32409630)

I fly in the exclusion on a fairly regular basis, once or twice a fortnight. And I don't think there's any need for more restrictions. The pilots that fly there are generally really good with their radio calls and keep the chatter to a minimum. It feels safer in there than the average busy uncontrolled airport with multiple aircraft in the pattern. Just gotta keep your ears open and eyes peeled.

[Jofm5]

Having watched the video on MSNBC I have a question (I am a fixed wing PPL student of 4hrs so far).

Greg Freith (the former NTSB guy) stated that the piper flew into the path of the helicopter - in the UK the presedence is to give way to the right so would the chopper not be in the wrong - is this different in FAA land? (This question is not to apportion blame but to understand why he said what he did).

Regardless of what aviation law says, I find it hard to believe that in VFR conditions if either had seen the other that they would have proceeded on a heading without observing what each other where doing (as in you would always work on the basis the other has not seen you).

A very sad incident which is another expensive lesson in life which hopefully has the silver lining that we learn from it.

[Gordy]

Ooooops (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6572038.html)

© 2009 The Associated Press
Aug. 13, 2009, 8:00PM
WASHINGTON — The Federal Aviation Administration says it has placed two employees on administrative leave in connection with last week's deadly mid-air collision over New York's Hudson River.
The FAA said Thursday night it has begun disciplinary proceedings against an air-traffic controller who was handling the small plane that collided with a tour helicopter and against a supervisor on duty at the time.

The FAA says the controller was involved in "apparently inappropriate conversations" on the telephone at the time of the accident. The agency says the supervisor was not in the building at the time as required.

However, the FAA says that the employees' actions don't appear to have contributed to the accident itself. Nine people died in the crash.

[JGP]

YouTube - Moment Of Impact Hudson River Mid Air Footage from NBC news (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwT6yP1UXE4)

[stepwilk]

All the baloney about whether or not the Lance pilot should have put the gear down was covered many pages ago in this thread. The gear on that airplane is hydraulic. With one wing gone, the hydraulic system would have been open, the fluid gone in seconds. The gear then free-fell. Pilot had nothing to do with it.

Then why resurrect the issue? No one else has.

SP



This thread really has deteriorated to a state where the most "knowledgeable" posters are maybe a student pilot with four hours, the rest certainly don't belong on "a haven for professional helicopter pilots." Sad.

The posters on this thread include many helicopter pilots with intimate knowledge of the area. They have the good grace to answer questions from "4 hour student pilots" without criticism of the poster. We also have the good grace to accept that not everyone posting here is a "professional helicopter pilot".

SP



Oh, and Gordy, I don't know where the AP gets its information, but there were no ATC people "handling" either of those aircraft. Both were well below radar coverage in the area and were flying in VFR-only airspace. No positive control possible.

I suspect that the AP get their information from the FAA in the same way that you (as a journalist) get yours. It is already well established that the light aircraft was handed off by ATC: other than trolling, I don't understand your issue here.

SP

[Nubian]

Jofm5,

Same in the states with regards to "right-hand-rule" however from the last footage I am under the impression that the plane is turning into the helicopter from behind. The aircraft that is overtaking another, does not have the right of way even if it would come from the right (ie. should pass behind in that case)
For a helicopter-pilot to see and aircraft coming up from past 3 o'clock, as it looks in this case, is not easy. When I fly, my general scanning is the 180 degree arc in my path of flight, unless I have been warned by ATC about approaching aircraft in proximity in the process of overtaking me.
Also, the plane was climbing, so the helicopter clipped the right wing of the plane instead of the left one that was the closest.. This makes me think that the helicopter would easily come in a blind-spot for the pilot of the plane. Nose higher than in level flight, turning + factors as scanning his map, changing radiochannels etc.

Just my two cents

[Tfor2]

The video of the crash shown on NBC News makes a private pilot shudder. There he is in his family plane, maintaining a steady course and altitude, perhaps chatting with his brother and son, keeping a wary eye out for traffic, staying in his imaginary lane, believing that the rule of the road is to keep to the right if on a collision course, serenely believing all is well.

Suddenly a helicopter appears in front, totally unexpectedly - what to do? Keep to the right? Go up? Go down? What will the traffic do? No amount of training will help here.

There seems to be little information and discussion about the helicopter pilot, a seasoned professional, and his actions. Was he in touch with ATC? Which one? Did he announce his intentions? Did he need a clearance to take off? Are there recordings of his radio communications? What was he doing at the altitude and in the observable flight path of a less manoeuvrable fixed wing plane?

(And isn't a common shared frequency urgently needed?)

As for those poor guys being disciplined back at the TEB ATC, they were out of it. But I'm sure that the operator would have responded quickly to any radio'd call-in, and the authorities have to show they're doing something.

The press and the public read these posts, not for spin, but for facts. Let's provide them.

[Flying Lawyer]

"The press and the public read these posts, not for spin, but for facts. Let's provide them" says Tfor2 who writes: There he is in his family plane, maintaining a steady course and altitude, perhaps chatting with his brother and son, keeping a wary eye out for traffic, staying in his imaginary lane, believing that the rule of the road is to keep to the right if on a collision course, serenely believing all is well.Which parts of the above are known facts? :confused:


the authorities have to show they're doing something That's the time to get worried.
Knee-jerk legislation when 'the authorities' (aviation and non-aviation) feel they ought to be seen to be doing 'something' rarely produces anything of value. The product is usually greater (and unnecessary) restrictions of freedom and greater inconvenience with little real benefit - if any.


FH1100 Pilot Accidents like this NYC mid-air are always tragic. But at the end of the day, they are just that - fluke accidents. Let's not make more of this than it is. Exactly.
Well said. :ok:

[robertbartsch]

This from CNN:


FAA suspends 2 air traffic controllers over Hudson crash - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/13/new.york.plane.crash/index.html)

(CNN) -- The Federal Aviation Administration has suspended two air traffic controllers from New Jersey's Teterboro Airport over Saturday's collision of two aircraft over the Hudson that killed nine people, a spokeswoman said Thursday.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/US/08/13/new.york.plane.crash/art.plane.wreckage.wabc.jpg

The wreckage of a PA-32 that collided Saturday with a helicopter is lifted Tuesday from the Hudson River.

The controller handling the flight of a Piper PA-32 Saratoga carrying three people "was involved in apparently inappropriate conversations on the telephone at the time of the accident," spokeswoman Laura Brown said in a written statement.
In addition, "the supervisor was not present in the building as required," she said.
"While we have no reason to believe at this time that these actions contributed to the accident, this kind of conduct is unacceptable and we have placed the employees on administrative leave and have begun disciplinary proceedings," she said.
The union for air traffic controllers urged caution.
"We support that any such allegation is fully investigated before there is a rush to judgment about the behavior of any controller," said a statement from the National Air Traffic Controllers Association.
The National Transportation Safety Board is working with the FAA in investigating the Piper's collision with a sightseeing helicopter.
"These are serious violations of the FAA regulations," said Mary Schiavo, former inspector general for the Transportation Department.

The controller was on the phone with his girlfriend "after he cleared the pilot for takeoff," a source with knowledge of the investigation told CNN. "He was still on the phone at the time of the crash."
Killed aboard the plane were the owner and pilot, Steven Altman, 60, of Ambler, Pennsylvania; his brother, Daniel Altman, 49, of Dresher, Pennsylvania; and Daniel Altman's 16-year-old son, Douglas.
The Piper took off from a Philadelphia-area airfield Saturday morning and landed at New Jersey's Teterboro Airport before taking off again, this time bound for Ocean City, New Jersey.
The NTSB has said the pilot of the small plane was cleared electronically and handed off to Newark, New Jersey, air traffic controllers, a standard procedure.
However, Newark's control tower never got a verbal response from the pilot of the small plane. Controllers lost contact with the plane at 11:53 a.m., when it was at an altitude of about 1,100 feet, the NTSB said.
The controller put on leave was described as a long-time employee, the source said.
He and the supervisor face disciplinary action that could include their firing.
Also Thursday, FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt said the agency may re-issue advisories to pilots using the busy airspace over the Hudson River.
Pilots are urged to use a radio frequency dedicated to traffic in that corridor, to fly no faster than 140 knots, and to turn on their lights as they enter that airspace.
The victims aboard the helicopter were the pilot and five tourists from Bologna, Italy, part of a group of 10 Bologna-area residents who were in New York to help a couple celebrate their 25th wedding anniversary, said Giovanni Castellaneta, Italy's ambassador to the United States.
The celebrating husband and one of the couple's sons were killed in the crash, but the wife skipped the sightseeing flight to go shopping, another son told Italian news media.
The victims from Bologna were Michele Norelli, 51; Norelli's son Filippo Norelli, 16; Fabio Gallazzi, 49; Gallazzi's wife, Tiziana Pedroni, 44; and Gallazzi's son, Giacomo Gallazzi, 15.
Michele Norelli's wife, Silvia Rigamonti, decided to visit New York stores instead of seeing its sights from above, the couple's eldest son, Davide Norelli, told Italian media.
The pilot of the helicopter -- a Eurocopter AS350 -- was Jeremy Clarke, 32. He had worked for Liberty Helicopter Sightseeing Tours for about 1½ years and had logged 2,700 helicopter flight hours, NTSB Chairman Debbie Hersman said.
The helicopter was taking the five Italians on a 12-minute sightseeing tour around New York and had taken off from a heliport in midtown Manhattan (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Manhattan) shortly before the crash, Hersman said.

Hersman called the area "very complex airspace" near three major airports and a variety of other general aviation facilities.
In an effort to determine just how complex, the Federal Aviation Administration found that, in each of the eight days prior to the crash, an average of 225 aircraft operated at or below 1,100 feet within a 3-mile radius of the accident site, she said. Below that altitude, aircraft can operate under visual flight regulations.
The wreckage of the helicopter was pulled from the Hudson (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Hudson_River) on Sunday, nearly intact. Investigators will focus on radio communications along the air corridor at the time of the crash and will examine any images contributed by the public.
Neither aircraft was required to carry electronic data recorders -- often referred to as "black boxes" -- that record cockpit voices and flight information on larger planes. But electronic navigational devices on board might retain information that could help investigators, Hersman said.
Liberty Helicopter Sightseeing Tours, since 1995, has had eight accidents and one "incident," after which the NTSB made a number of safety recommendations, Hersman said.
"I think the fact that we are here today shows there is a lot of work that still needs to be done," she said.
Saturday's crash (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Accidents_and_Disasters) was the company's first involving fatalities.
Marcia Horowitz, a spokeswoman for the tour operator, said Liberty executives were working with investigators.
"The company is focusing its efforts on cooperating with the NTSB and giving as much information as it can," Horowitz said. "At this time, their priority is to help with the family of their pilot and, of course, the families that were involved in the accident."

[ExSp33db1rd]

If the Hudson corridor is a VFR corridor, under, but not included, in Controlled Airpsace, why is ATC even invoved after the clearance to maintain VFR over the Hudson not above 1,100 ft, has been issued and acknowledged ?

Should an ATC operator hear an exchange between two pilots on a common broadcast frequency, that might indicate a conflict, then of course one would expect them to try to interject, but this is not a 'flight following' route - or is it ?

Surely ATC had little interest in the progress of the Cherokee, except to perhaps expect a call clearing the corridor, and a request for further clearance at that point ? Are VHF pilots required to give an ETA for the corridor clearance, or can they undertake any activity they like, for as long as they like, within the zone, below 1,100 ft ?

Sorry about my ignorance of detail, but it would appear to me that ATC have absolutely no responsibiity in this case if a clearance to transit within the parameters laid down has been issued ?

[toptobottom]

Flying lawyer:
FH1100 Pilot
Quote:
Accidents like this NYC mid-air are always tragic. But at the end of the day, they are just that - fluke accidents. Let's not make more of this than it is.


How do we yet know this was a 'fluke accident'?! As a 'lawyer', I would have expected you of all people to want to be in possession of all the facts before passing such a flippant comment.


Debbie Hersman (NTSB Chairman) quote:

Liberty Helicopter Sightseeing Tours, since 1995, has had eight accidents and one "incident," after which the NTSB made a number of safety recommendations, Hersman said.
"I think the fact that we are here today shows there is a lot of work that still needs to be done," she said.

Now THAT was well said :ok:

[puntosaurus]

It's pretty clear that neither pilot saw the other, and whilst looking at a shaky video is always subject to interpretation, my sense is that on those trajectories, there's a pretty good chance that neither could have seen each other.

If that's the case then there's really only one solution - to make the corridor controlled airspace, still accessible by GA, but subject to proper control. No-one likes to see that, but unless you're prepared to see one of these 'flukes' every few years, then that's the only way out.

Imagine if the London or Paris heliroutes were a free for all, of course sooner or later something like this would happen.

[protectthehornet]

someone implied that without radar, positive control was impossible.

well, I remind all of you that non radar methods of seperation do exist and are practiced regularly on much of oceanic airspace.

I haven't seen the NBC video, but the only video that would mean anything would be radar tracks...which may or may not be available.

the wingspan of the piper was less than thirty four feet, tip to tip...think if even one second difference in takeoff of either craft had happened...a miss is as good as a mile.

[Flying Lawyer]

toptobottom

You're entitled to your opinion; as am I.

Yes, I am a lawyer (with considerable experience of aviation matters) and if I was expressing an opinion in a professional context I would have qualified it by saying that my opinion was based upon the information available to me at date of writing.

For some reason, you left out the sentence immediately following the passage you quoted:Saturday's crash was the company's first involving fatalities.

My primary concern is that incidents/accidents such as this can lead to increased regulation because those in authority feel that 'something must be done' (or be seen to be done) even when there there no real need to do anything.

There is some risk of accidents arising out of many activities but that is no reason to impose a grey and dull safety regime upon everyone.
It is impossible to live in a riskless society; I would not want to.


FL

[Cows getting bigger]

Please forgive me for my ignorance. Firstly, having looked at the charts there VFR corridors look rather narrow. We have a couple in the UK (the Manchester LLR springs to mind) and they certainly require good lookout. Furthermore, everyone tends to fly at the maximum permitted altitude (for obvious reasons). It seems to me that the NY corridors are extremely popular and not necessarily for any other significant reason than sight seeing. With helicopters, fixed wing mixing in the same piece of sky it is always going to be difficult to deconflict aircraft. Is it worth consider some form of flow control imposition on VFR aircraft (ie no more than x aircraft in the airspace at any one time)? The RAF did something similar a few years back when low level fast jets kept bumping into each other; limit the number of aircraft in a block of sky and you manage the risk.

[rick1128]

Please keep in mind that the Piper pilot was handed off to Newark. The only reason that would have happened is if the pilot were staying in the Class B airspace. As a previous poster pointed out, if the pilot was going to fly in the exclusion, he would have been directed to change his transponder to VFR and change frequency. This did not happen. So it appears that this pilot was planning on staying in controlled airspace. Just because the pilot indicated that he would fly down the river, does not mean he had to be in the exclusion.

Also consider that the piper pilot, if he had an engine problem, very likely had two very panicky passengers on board. As we know, this has the potential of greatly increasing the pilot's workload.

I go into the Exclusion areas upwards of three times a day. And for the most part everyone operating in them communicates their position and intentions clearly and in a timely manner.

Keeping all exterior lights on also helps. Pulse lights are bigger help.

As for changing the reg over to Euro style, we think we're the ones that got it right.

[Cows getting bigger]

Rick, I was with you until your last sentence. Thinking you have it right (and therefore someone else has it 'wrong') is a foolish attitude in aviation. You should always keep an open mind.

[Phil77]

Cows:
In respect to total helicopter operations in and out of West 30th Street heliport (KJRA), sightseeing is phasing out, moving to Wall Street (much more open and easier to access).
Not by choice of the operators, I have to add, rather by a court decision resulting from noise complaints:


The noisy W. 30th St. Heliport, located within the Hudson River Park, will become progressively quieter beginning next year when sightseeing flights are reduced by half, and will be eliminated entirely by April 1, 2010, according to a settlement in Manhattan State Supreme Court.

But commercial, government and emergency flights will continue at W. 30th St. until the end of 2014 or until a new heliport is in operation on a nearby pier outside of park boundaries, according to the settlement of the lawsuit filed by Friends of Hudson River Park and others against the Hudson River Park Trust, the state-city agency building the 5-mile-long park, and Air Pegasus, which has been operating the heliport for decades.
[...]
But Mayor Bloomberg has frequently reaffirmed the long-held city policy that a West Side Heliport is needed for business connections to major airports, and the settlement was reached after six months of negotiations to satisfy park use and transportation needs.

The phasing out of sightseeing flights under the settlement allows 25,000 such flights from June 1, 2008, to May 31, 2009. From June 2009 to March 31, 2010, the total number of sightseeing flights will be no more that 12,500. During the entire time, sightseeing flights on the West Side will be restricted to over the middle of the Hudson River.

The maximum number of both sightseeing and nonsightseeing flights at W. 30th St. will be 41,250 between June 2008 through May 31, 2009, and 26,050 from June 2009 through March 31, 2010. Beginning April 1, 2010, there will be no more than 16,250 annual flights from W. 30th St. However, flights resulting from a declared federal or state emergency will be exempt from those limits.

Source: Chopper flight numbers to be chopped down (http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_269/chopperflight.html)


So basically its already down to a maximum of 71 flights allowed a day (that's like 5-6 an hour during daylight) and will be less than 44/day next year. Actually Airnav .com quotes a statistic saying that in 12 month last year there where only 52 operations a day - not sure were that number is from.

Not saying that the total number of flights on the hudson river will go down, but the takeoffs and landings can be structured safer.



Will they shutdown the corridor? Very unlikely, the city officials themselves have a huge interest in the heliports, since they (and their "supporters" - read: lobbyists) are using the heliports themselves. As far as sightseeing goes, here is a quote from USA Today about the hard to ignore economics:
The city's Economic Development Corporation says helicopter charters and sightseeing employs nearly 1,400 people and brings in nearly $300 million in annual revenue to the city.

As far as positive control is concerned; it's not the first time the discussion flared up (believe it or not) and multiple studies showed, that it is almost impossible between radar shadows (buildings) and sheer amount of necessary traffic advisories (as someone stated earlier, the controller wouldn't stop talking) to safely conduct operations. It would probably be less safe, because a single set of eyes would be responsible for separation and since that person would constantly talk, nobody could warn each other, even if they fly see and avoid.

Can the current procedures be improved? Sure! But knee-jerk regulation resulting from a freak/fluke/random (whatever description suits you) accident cannot be the solution! :=

[Flying Lawyer]

Cows
Re your response to Rick -

Like Rick, I think the FAA has generally got the degree of regulation right and aviation in the UK/Europe is over-regulated.
Is that a foolish attitude in your opinion? If so, why?
(BTW, my opinion is based upon having had to consider regulation in several European countries and the USA over many years, which has given me ample opportunity to make comparisons.)

Does 'always keeping an open mind' mean, in your view, not forming an opinion about which regulatory system is generally better?
Or does it include forming an opinion but being open to changing that opinion if the basis for it changes?

[topendtorque]

Oh yes, preconceived ideas, PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE, if one wishes to live to be an auld pilot.

an easy example is the colonial staidness syndrome, so easily seen in the backblocks of old cattle communities in places like North Queesnland.
Yer know, 'that's the way my father dunnit-anthat'stheway-I'm gonnadunnit, - like, Eh maite.!!. Ehhh.

Methinks that flying lawyer and a couple of others are doing an excellent job of answering queries, some of which have been put tiresomely repetitively before, and that it is time that we moved on.

what may have worked for decades did not work here, the proof is in.

one must be able to have a small airspace bust, accidental or for emergency, and not have fatalities.

Lets hope we all move onto better mental manipulation in our procedures and flight conduct to cover for this tragedy with better airspace management.

No!, no I don't think that anyone will disagree with any of that.

Also, I for one will not condemm a small "inappropriate" comment by an air trafficker.
That is often how these guys test the water to see if things are really as OK as they are being made out to be. They may not know that they are doing it, but you often hear it.

Let's hope that rellies, and others connected to the affected, do not have to suffer the inconsequental drivel of the last few repeated questions and perplexing sitreps, and that SP will close this thread off until a report comes thru from NTSB.

I say this for the sake of those affected who may be scanning these pages.
cheers tet.

[Devil 49]

High traffic areas are higher risk areas, whether controlled or uncontrolled airspace. Midair collisions occur in both: fixed-wing/fixed-wing; rotary/rotary; and combinations thereof.

The crash occurred at something like 8 nm into the Piper's flight from Teterboro to Ocean City, an extremely limited time to monitor traffic, self-announce as one exited a controlled airport, and merge into a very busy VFR corridor. Not impossible or unreasonable, but challenging and unforgiving of conflict.

It also appears to have been less than 2 nm from the helo's departure pad. That is not a lot of time to update traffic and it's too much time for a helo's pre-departure clearing turn information.

My best guess is that neither pilot saw the other aircraft at any point. The natural inclination is to direct most of your attention to the front, where you're going, and where the hazards close quickly with you. Looks to me like the Piper was turning to follow the published route at the point of impact.

It's hard to visually pick out traffic against visual clutter, even with electronic aid. If the traffic is low in your perpendicular, and with little relative movement, it's really hard. I'd guess that was the Piper pilot was pretty busy as he chose to enter a high risk environment. No blame intended by implication...

The helo was probably still climbing and establishing on the route, coming from one risk environment into another and the airplane approached in his perpendicular and blind side, perhaps from beyond his visual range from his clearing turn. My experience is that I'd be 2-3 minutes into the flight when I got to what I'd guess was the collision altitude. The airplane could easily have been out of the helo's visual field when the pilot was looking in his direction. My TIS is often not even updated or downloaded at this point, so much for that.

A position or controller's call would easily be missed or covered, and the stars are aligned for tragedy.

[Cows getting bigger]

Flying Lawyer, I'm most certainly in the second camp. Do something, have a look at it, does it work, if not change it, look at it again. In basic terms, the Boyd Cycle (Boyd being a renowned American military aviator). My line with Rick was that he appeared to believe the FAA had the right answer and that was it. I'm sure the FAA are pro-active in assessing current procedures and balancing regulation against risk.

[Phil77]

My best guess is that neither pilot saw the other aircraft at any point.

Not never, but too late I think. The helicopter was climbing out, has most likely not seen the Piper prior to takeoff - and probably never did afterwards (btw. Devil: there is not enough room for a clearing turn - correction: maybe enough room, but you'd be busy not putting your tail in the fence, rather than scanning for traffic).

To the best of my knowledge Libertys AStars are flown left seat (?); leaves a big blind spot to your right-aft quadrant.

Putting everything together: speed of the airplane, climb speed of the helicopter (indicates that the Piper pilot has not seen the helo take off the heliport - unlikely that the helicopter was underneath the Pipers wing during the whole climb-out, considering the climb speed of of an AStar) and the fact that the Pipers right wing instead of the left wing got cut off, indicates that the F/W pilot tried to bank away in the last second.

Yep now I did it, I guessed what happened based on what we know. As for determining if that's what really happened and who's fault it was, I leave that to the NTSB.

[AnthonyGA]

When I read about the FAA suspending two controllers after this incident, I had a weird thought: What if someone smart at the FAA were deliberately using the controller suspensions as a kind of stalking horse to discourage any other calls for "doing something"?

It's like this: People who have more emotion than brains call immediately for "doing something" after this very rare and unusual accident. They want heavy regulation, radar, ATC, bans on GA or helicopter traffic, yadda yadda. Someone at the FAA sees the folly and foolishness in acting on these irrational calls to action, so they look around as the NTSB investigates, and, lo, they find that two controllers at Teterboro were breaking the rules. So they suspend the controllers and issue a press release, emphasizing that these controllers were at the same airport that talked to the Piper in the accident, and mentioning that they probably had nothing to do with the accident only in the fine print.

What's the effect? The media latch on to the controller suspensions. This is presented and accepted as "doing something." Attention is diverted from calls for heavier regulation or other inappropriate actions. The controllers' mistakes had nothing to do with the accident, but that detail is deliberately understated by all. Result: No changes need be made to the airspace or regulations in order to "do something," since "something has been done" by suspending those nasty controllers.

Thus, it could be a very clever ploy to avoid much more damaging changes to the status quo, which has proven incredibly safe for many years.

As for the controllers, well, they lose. However, they WERE breaking the rules, and the actions taken against them are perfectly legitimate and justified, even if they had nothing to do with the accident. They took their chances by breaking the rules, and they got caught.

Am I giving the FAA too much credit?

[FH1100 Pilot]

When more than one aircraft is in the sky, the possibility for a mid-air exists. During my time as a tour pilot in NYC I had plenty of close-calls.

I remember when the NYPD helicopter and the floatplane collided over the East River near the Wall Street Heliport. But I also remember only two other mid-airs that occured - both within (what we used to call) the aiport traffic area of Teterboro, coincidentally enough. One was between a f/w twin and a Bell 206 with *two* pilots onboard! If mid-airs can happen around airports with working control towers, can we even hope to prevent all of them in "uncontrolled" areas?

During my 13 years in the GOM for PHI, I had some close-calls too. In fact, early in my career with the company we were averaging one mid-air per year. Some happened near airports or at the beach-in/beach-out points, but some happened out in the Gulf proper.

One day in 1998 my friend Andy was flying his speed-hobbled (at the time) 407, just cruising along fat, dumb, and happy when he heard a wierd noise. Looking around, specifically over his right shoulder, he was horrified to see a Twinstar bearing down on him. He banked hard left, but it was too late. The Twinstar's rotor cut off Andy's tailboom and the nose of his ship. If he hadn't immediately gone into a crouch position his feet would have left with the tail rotor pedals. Somehow...unbelievably, he got the throttle off and autorotated down. He lived. Sadly, the Twinstar pilot did not.

In another, more fortunate incident, my friend Greg was flying along in his 206B, fat dumb and happy when he got a strange feeling. Nothing seemed wrong in the ship, but when he looked over his left shoulder and around the broom closet, he was horrified to see another 206 (a faster L-model) overtaking him on a direct collision course, so close that Greg could see the pilot's head down (playing with the loran or gps?). Greg hauled aft on the cyclic and...somehow...avoided a collision. We're still scratching our heads over that one.

Bullets over a battlefield.

Sure, the Hudson River exclusion is crowded. Pilots who elect to fly in it must exercise proper diligence...okay, "extra" diligence. But that applies to all of us too, no matter where we fly.

I love my Zaon aftermarket TCAD. Even when I'm on the ground, as long as aircraft in the traffic pattern are being painted by radar, I'll see the replies from their transponders, displayed right on the screen of my Garmin 496, which is mounted up on top of the glare shield, where it should be. Foolproof? No. But it's a heck of a great tool.

[toptobottom]

Everyone enjoys the privilege of flying without unnecessary rules and regulations, but my point about this so called ‘fluke’ accident is that instead of accepting it as an unfortunate but inevitable consequence of ‘GA flying risk’, it probably could have been avoided. I am not at all familiar with the very busy Hudson River area airspace and, like everyone else, I’ll wait and hear what the NTSB have to say in due course; hopefully, we will learn from this tragedy and there may well be new procedures imposed to help prevent a repetition. From reading the very informative contributions in this thread from those member who are familiar however, it seems clear to me that this was an accident waiting to happen and without some improvement in safety regulations, there is little doubt that a similar accident will happen again, sooner or later.

At the risk of incurring another ‘civil rights’ backlash, surely nobody can disagree that better control in this specific vicinity would be a good thing; it needn’t be onerous and needn’t affect other areas necessarily. There have been suggestions around separate tracks/heights for RW and FW, or a single frequency for all GA traffic, for example. Whatever, I don’t understand why my fellow aviators would rather continue to run the gauntlet than have extra controls introduced, even though these controls could protect them from a similar situation.

Puntosaurus mentioned the London heli routes earlier; these are very accurately plotted both by track and height to provide the safest route possible for single engine machines, and to avoid mid airs between GA traffic as well as with City and Heathrow traffic. The documentation to support these heli routes is extremely detailed and pilots navigating them need to be thoroughly trained by someone with experience. The result (as far as I’m aware) is a faultless safety record. Compare that with the NTSB declaration that there have been 8 accidents in the Hudson River area in the last 14 years and introducing new procedures would seem to be a no-brainer.

TTB

[protectthehornet]

just read an update on the ntsb investigation...seems that both piper and copter were on radar and that newerk asked teterboro to resolve a possible conflict

urge you to read the following:

NTSB ADVISORY
************************************************************

National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594

August 14, 2009

************************************************************

NTSB ISSUES UPDATE ON ITS INVESTIGATION INTO THE MIDAIR
COLLISION OVER THE HUDSON RIVER

************************************************************

In its continuing investigation of the midair collision of
an air tour helicopter and a small plane over the Hudson
River on Saturday, the National Transportation Safety Board
has developed the following factual information:

On August 8, 2009, at 11:53 a.m. EDT, a Eurocopter AS 350 BA
(N401LH) operated by Liberty Helicopters and a Piper PA-32R-
300 (N71MC) operated by a private pilot, collided in midair
over the Hudson River near Hoboken, New Jersey. The
certificated commercial pilot and five passengers onboard
the helicopter were killed. The certificated private pilot
and two passengers onboard the airplane were also killed.
Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight
plans were filed for either flight. The local sightseeing
helicopter flight was conducted under the provisions of 14
Code of Federal Regulations Part 136. The personal airplane
flight was conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of
Federal Regulations Part 91.

The helicopter departed West 30th Street Heliport (JRA), New
York, New York, for a sightseeing tour at 11:52 a.m. The
airplane departed Teterboro Airport (TEB), Teterboro, New
Jersey, at 11:49 a.m.; destined for Ocean City Municipal
Airport (26N), Ocean City, New Jersey. The airplane pilot
requested an en route altitude of 3500 feet.

According to preliminary radar data, the helicopter turned
south from JRA and climbed to 1,100 feet, with a transponder
code of 1200. According to witnesses, the pilot of the
helicopter had transmitted a position report of "Stevens
Point" (Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, New
Jersey) on the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF),
123.05.

On the day of the accident, Teterboro Air Traffic Control
Tower staff consisted of five controllers. At the time of
the accident, the tower was staffed with two controllers:
one controller was working ground control, local control,
and arrival radar, and was also acting as the controller in
charge of the facility. The second controller was working
the flight data/clearance delivery position. Two other
controllers were on break and the front line manager had
left the facility at about 1145.

At 1148:30, the Teterboro tower controller cleared the
airplane for takeoff on frequency 119.50. The first radar
target for the airplane was recorded at 1149:55 as the
flight departed runway 19.

The tower controller advised the airplane and the pilot of
another helicopter operating in the area of each other and
instructed the pilot of the airplane to remain at or below
1,100 feet. At this time, the tower controller initiated a
non-business-related phone call to Teterboro Airport
Operations. The airplane flew southbound until the
controller instructed its pilot to turn left to join the
Hudson River. At 1152:20 the Teterboro controller instructed
the pilot to contact Newark on a frequency of 127.85; the
airplane reached the Hudson River just north of Hoboken
about 40 seconds later. At that time there were several
aircraft detected by radar in the area immediately ahead of
the airplane, including the accident helicopter, all of
which were potential traffic conflicts for the airplane. The
Teterboro tower controller, who was engaged in a phone call
at the time, did not advise the pilot of the potential
traffic conflicts. The Newark tower controller observed air
traffic over the Hudson River and called Teterboro to ask
that the controller instruct the pilot of the airplane to
turn toward the southwest to resolve the potential
conflicts. The Teterboro controller then attempted to
contact the airplane but the pilot did not respond. The
collision occurred shortly thereafter. A review of recorded
air traffic control communications showed that the pilot did
not call Newark before the accident occurred.

The helicopter departed from the 30th Street Heliport at
1152 for what was planned to be a 12-minute tour. The
initial part of the tour was to be flown outside class B
airspace, so the pilot was not required to contact air
traffic control before or after departure. The first radar
target for the helicopter was detected by Newark radar at
about 1152:27, when the helicopter was approximately mid-
river west of the heliport and climbing through 400 feet.
According to recorded radar data, the helicopter flew to the
west side of the river, and then turned southbound to follow
the Hudson. According to Liberty Helicopters management,
this was the expected path for the tour flight. The
helicopter continued climbing southbound until 1153:14, when
it and the airplane collided at 1,100 feet.

As noted above, immediately after the Teterboro tower
controller instructed the airplane to contact Newark tower
on frequency 127.85, the Newark controller called the
Teterboro controller to request that they turn the airplane
to a heading of 220 degrees (southwest) and transfer
communications on the aircraft. As the Newark controller
was providing the suggested heading to the Teterboro
controller, the pilot of the airplane was acknowledging the
frequency change to the Teterboro controller. The Teterboro
controller made two unsuccessful attempts to reach the
pilot, with the second attempt occurring at 1152:50. At
1152:54, 20 seconds prior to the collision, the radar data
processing system detected a conflict between the airplane
and the helicopter, which set off aural alarms and a caused
a "conflict alert" indication to appear on the radar
displays at both Teterboro and Newark towers. During
interviews both controllers stated that they did not recall
seeing or hearing the conflict alert. At 1153:19, five
seconds after the collision, the Teterboro controller
contacted the Newark controller to ask about the airplane,
and was told that the pilot had not called. There were no
further air traffic control contacts with either aircraft.

The role that air traffic control might have played in this
accident will be determined by the NTSB as the investigation
progresses. Any opinions rendered at this time are
speculative and premature.

Radar data and witness statements indicate that the aircraft
collided at 1,100 feet in the vicinity of Stevens Point.
Most of the wreckage fell in to the Hudson River; however,
some small debris from the airplane, including the right
main landing gear wheel, fell on land within the city limits
of Hoboken. The collision was witnessed by numerous people
in the area of the accident and was immediately reported to
local emergency responders.

The helicopter was recovered on August 9, 2009. Most of the
helicopter components were accounted for at the scene, with
the exception of the main rotor and transmission. The
airplane was recovered on August 11, 2009. Most of the
airplane components were accounted for at the scene, with
the exception of both wings. The wreckages were subsequently
transported to a secure facility in Delaware.

The pilot of the airplane, age 60, held a private pilot
certificate, with ratings for airplane single-engine land,
airplane multiengine land and instrument airplane. His most
recent FAA third-class medical certificate was issued on May
14, 2009. At that time he reported a total flight experience
of 1,020 hours.

The pilot of the helicopter, age 32, held a commercial pilot
certificate, with ratings for rotorcraft helicopter and
instrument helicopter. His most recent FAA second-class
medical certificate was issued on June 16, 2009. At that
time he reported a total flight experience of 3,010 hours.

Digital photographs and a video recording taken by witnesses
to the accident have been provided to the NTSB. In
addition, a digital camera was recovered from the
helicopter. All of these were sent to the NTSB Vehicle
Recorders Laboratory in Washington, DC for further
examination. Global Positioning System units were recovered
from both aircraft and also forwarded to the NTSB Vehicle
Recorders Laboratory.

The recorded weather at TEB at 1151 was wind variable at 3
knots, visibility 10 miles, sky clear, temperature 24
degrees Celsius, dew point 7 degrees Celsius, altimeter
30.23 inches of mercury.

###

NTSB Media Contact: Keith Holloway
(202) 314-6100

[birrddog]

The tower controller advised the airplane and the pilot of
another helicopter operating in the area of each other and
instructed the pilot of the airplane to remain at or below
1,100 feet. At this time, the tower controller initiated a
non-business-related phone call to Teterboro Airport
Operations. The airplane flew southbound until the
controller instructed its pilot to turn left to join the
Hudson River. At 1152:20 the Teterboro controller instructed
the pilot to contact Newark on a frequency of 127.85; the
airplane reached the Hudson River just north of Hoboken
about 40 seconds later.Is it me or is this conflicting advice -> fly in the VFR corridor ("remain at or below 1,100 feet") but switch to the controller of the class B airspace above.

"Remain above 1,100 feet and switch to newark" would have been more appropriate... especially seeing that:
The NTSB has said the pilot of the small plane was cleared electronically and handed off to NewarkFWIW, I once had a TEB controller vector a departing Lear with a course intercepting mine, after they cleared me in for approach. I needed new underwear, and by the look in the Lear pilots eyes I think he did too. Luckily we saw each other in time (and were aware each other were in the area, and thus paying attention) and took avoiding action.

Not banging on the controllers at TEB, just saying making the corridor radar controlled is not going to stop human error, it will just move it from 2 pilots down to 1 controller to make a mistake.

[puntosaurus]

Yes but that's a controller's job ! Of course he/she can make errors, but would you rather take off on a sightseeing heli trip and just hope there's nothing in the way, or have some kind of reassurance that someone, somewhere, is worrying about it ?

Anyone who has accumulated any hours knows that there are blind spots in an aircraft, and the more hours you fly the more you know that 'see and avoid' is a myth.

The more aircraft you bottle up in a small space the more the probability rises that there will be an accident. So it makes sense that in an intensely crowded area such as this, there needs to be control. Not the dead hand of control, just the sensible application of some rules and procedures to keep traffic apart.

[FH1100 Pilot]

toptobottom sez:From reading the very informative contributions in this thread from those member who are familiar however, it seems clear to me that this was an accident waiting to happen and without some improvement in safety regulations, there is little doubt that a similar accident will happen again, sooner or later...
If it indeed was an "accident waiting to happen," then we've waited quite a long time! Sightseeing helicopter tours have been going on from the W30th Street Heliport pretty much uninterrupted since the 1960's with no mid-airs. The New York TCA was instituted, in...oh, 1971 or so, and the exclusion was there from the beginning. So it's not fair to say this was an "accident waiting to happen."

I suppose if we wait long enough, every accident possible will occur.

Before beginning my career as a pilot, I managed the W30th Street Heliport briefly in the mid-70's while a small operator ran tours from there. During that time I saw planes big and small transiting the corridor. The biggest was a lumbering 707...God knows who's it was (an amazing sight!). And Philip-Morris's G-II came zooming down once. This was long before we had the CTAF noted on the chart.

Whatever, I don’t understand why my fellow aviators would rather continue to run the gauntlet than have extra controls introduced, even though these controls could protect them from a similar situation.

Maybe because more controls are not needed? It's not a gauntlet. It's no worse than the beehive of fish-spotters that congregate in certain places along the Louisiana coast. It's no worse than the traffic in and around the Destin, Florida area on a busy weekend.

Keep your eyes open and outside the cockpit, guys. There are too many well-meaning people out there (pilots included, strangely) who would love to see more and more regulations heaped upon us.

...As if more rules regulations can prevent mid-airs.

[Flying Lawyer]

FH1100 Pilot
Good post. :ok:

I wonder if toptobottom knew when making his post that an average of well over 200 aircraft operate at or below 1100 feet within a 3 mile radius of the accident site every day without incident or accident.

Perhaps he assumes that the "8 accidents in the Hudson River area in the last 14 years" were mid-airs?

As far as I can recall, despite the high volume of low level traffic every day, the last mid-air over NYC was between a Cessna seaplane approaching to land on the East River and a police helicopter near the Brooklyn waterfront. That was 26 years ago in 1983.

FL


YouTube - Moment Of Impact Hudson River Mid Air Footage from NBC news (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwT6yP1UXE4)

[darrenphughes]

I have to agree with FH1100 Pilot above.

I also particularly like this excerpt from the NTSB advisory;

The role that air traffic control might have played in this
accident will be determined by the NTSB as the investigation
progresses. Any opinions rendered at this time are
speculative and premature.

How about you hold off until the NTSB and FAA determine what the best way to move forward is. Especially if you have no experience with the operations conducted in the exclusion.

[Gordy]

I am with the rest in agreeing that FH1100 made an excellent post.

I would add that those who keep advocating that this is dangerous airspace should just stay away. As with everything one does, there is a comfort level. A private pilot may look at fire fighting helicopters working and say they need more control.....I have worked in a daisy chain of 13 helicopters dipping from the same pond at the same time...not a problem, because it is what we do.

I will go out on a limb here and suggest that just as a dipsite pond is no place for a private pilot, the Hudson river corridor is also no place for the "average" private pilot. If you feel it needs more regulation---feel free to stay out.

[Dairyground]

For reasons that, at present, we can only speculate about, neither pilot appears to have seen the other aircraft in time to take effective avoiding action.

We were told in an early post that

The Netherlands airforce painted their Pilatus PC-7 basic trainers black a couple of years ago, because research had shown that black aircraft are better visible against a daylight sky than other colours.

For opposite reasons, many species of fish have evolved colouring that is dark on top and loght below. Should aircraft, in particular those that frequently climb and descend in congested airspace, be required to adopt a complementary colour scheme, with light colour on top and dark below? Or even better, large patches of the type of the flourescent colours used on high-visibilty jackets.

I understand that some WW2 fighters had mirrors to give a view into what would otherwise have been blind spots. Why not fit them to modern light and medium aircraft, particularly helicopters, with their ability to move in directions where the pilot cannot easily see?

The mirror is a simple and generally reliable piece of technology, but there are better and relatively cheap alternatives. Modern domestic video cameras are small, light and relatively inexpensive; likewise small colour displays. A trip to the local consumer electronics shop should produce all the bits for a simple installation for five or six hundred pounds, though I suppose a fully certified installation could cost ten times as much - still relatively cheap.

[protectthehornet]

If you have seen the interwar P26 or the variety of training planes of this era, that's the color for planes.

blue body, yellow wings, red and white tails...big rondels on the wing.

I just watched the new video of the actual collision. ouch.

[ReverseFlight]

The more I read about this accident, the clearer the picture emerges. IMHO, both teams of controllers from Teterboro and Newark may have inadvertently contributed to the accident - they had grown complacent to the multiple collision alerts which have become background noise in that busy corridor. I believe the FAA has a lot to answer for too, due to the lack of separation minima between FW and RW aircraft over the Hudson.

In this incident, nobody wants to be a scapegoat, but the reality is that the cheese holes have been lining up one by one over the years.

I feel very sorry for the pilots (and their pax) who paid the highest price in order to progress this learning exercise. Judging from the video, neither saw each other and probably neither could have seen each other in the circumstances.

Just my humble 2 cents worth.

[birrddog]

Can someone with fixed wing experience please give some insight into airspace scans?

In helicopters we generally have the luxury of pretty good visibility from the cockpit in front, below, above and ~180deg left and right.

Fixed wings have other constraints, like engines, props, no glass in the floor, wings in the way, etc.

Are there 'standard' techniques to improve visibility in the scan like changing pitch, banking, etc. that one might employ (as standard procedure) before entering busy uncontrolled airspace?

[toptobottom]

FH1100 – you explain that during your time as a tour pilot in NYC you had plenty of close-calls. You also say “...As if more rules regulations can prevent mid-airs.” Extraordinary.

Let’s wait for the NTSB’s verdict, but I can tell you now, whatever the conclusion, its recommendation certainly won’t be ‘Yeah – fluke. As you were guys – don’t forget your blind spots’. Neither will it be 'All aircraft must be painted fleurescent yellow and no PIC shall look down at a GPS when flying in busy airspace' :}.

PS ever heard of the UK's quadrantal rule? That'll never work.

[mary meagher]

Okay, here I go again, shoot me down if you must for my ignorance.

I started flying at Wycombe Park, UK. 3 types of aircraft mix in that airspace. Fixed wing, helicopters, gliders. All intensively flown.
And over the top (used to be 2,000' and above until the authorities granted a change) the jet traffic into Heathrow, and the politicians into Northolt, not to mention the military and the royals going in and out of Benson to the west and the tiger moths going in and out of White Waltham to the south.

Helicopters are different from all other birds, beware, they can rise vertically, go into reverse, etc. ( I have tried to reverse a Cessna away from a parking place but they stopped me in time.)

Blind spots exist particularly if high fixed wing conflicts with low fixed wing.
I do fly with a rear view mirror (to keep an eye on the glider on tow) but it doesn't help a lot. Too much vibration.

The real help in the Hudson corridor might be for the Feds to raise the ceiling for the VFR traffic? Like the regulators did over Wycombe? And then let the recommendations for keeping to the right up river, left downstream, , helis below l,500 and fixed wing between l,800 and 3,000, why not? After all, I can't imagine a cherokee taking off from a heliport.

[rick1128]

I have dealt with JAA regs in the past. And in my point of view they tell you what you can do. Where as the FAA regs tell you what you can not do. While it appears to be a small difference, it is a wide gap. My issue is the over regulation and over control that is in place in Europe. Much of which has little or no effect on safety. The FAA is not prefect, but neither is the JAA. But in my view the FAA has a better mix in the regulations.

Discussing this accident with other pilots, both FW and RW, that fly into the exclusion areas on a regular basis a few points that we all agree on.

1. Know the airspace. Know where the exclusion areas are and the routes.

2. Communicate type, position, altutude and direction on the common freqs.
clearly, precisely, in a timely manner and then shut up and listen. Too
many pilots want to tell their life stories on the freq. and step on
important information.

3. Use ALL available exterior lights. Pulse lights are a big help.

4. Keep your head on a swivel. Keep looking in all possible directions.

5. Be the pilot. You are not a tour guide. Let the passengers do the looking.

Next we need to be careful about running with the herd. It is presently being led by politicians that have personal and political agendas. Remember the last mid air in the area was 1983. Now compare it to the crime statistics for the first three months of 2009.

# Homicides: Down 23.3% this year through March 29 compared with same period last year; from 116 killings to 89.
# Rapes: Down 23.1% through same period; from 360 reported rapes to 277.
# Robberies: Down 14.6% through same period; from 4,837 to 4,131.
# Burglaries: Down 14.6 through same period; from 4,614 to 3,942.
# Grand larceny auto: Down 12.1% through same period; from 2,767 to2,431.
# Crime in housing projects: Felony crimes down over 21% through same period. There were 78 homicides last year, down 17% from 94 in 2001.
# Transit crimes: Felonies down more than 5% through same period. Even as ridership grew, felony crimes per day shrank to six last year, compared to 10 in 2001. Last year, the daily felony crime rate was one per 1 million riders, compared with two per day in 2001.

You think there might be some other reason they are screaming so load about the mid air?

From a previous poster, it appears that the pilot was assigned an altitude and since he was planning on staying in controlled airspace, he may not have been aware that he was in uncontrolled airspace. Talk about the holes in all the slices of cheese lining up.

[RatherBeFlying]

The dirty secret is that while on climb you can be smacked by faster traffic coming up from behind -- and at certain angles the guy coming up from behind will not see the climbing traffic.

Would climbing in the middle of the Hudson keep you clear of transiting traffic over the banks?

Remember that transiting traffic is not cognizant of the heliport locations or their landing / takeoff patterns. Yes, one could put them on the map but do you prefer transiting pilots with their eyes outside or on the map?

[darrenphughes]

Remember that transiting traffic is not cognizant of the heliport locations or their landing / takeoff patterns. Yes, one could put them on the map but do you prefer transiting pilots with their eyes outside or on the map?

If you are transiting in the Hudson, you should be very aware of where the heliports are. If you were transiting any other area with so many aerodromes in such a concentrated area anywhere else, you would make yourself aware of the direction of runways in a bid to figure out where the local traffic is most likely to be. Or at least you should.

Take the Flying W(N14) area of New Jersey, for example. 3 uncontrolled airports within a 3 mile radius. I wouldn't dream of transiting that area at pattern altitude without a good mental picture of where the local traffic would be operating.

[Nubian]

From the latest preliminary report, we can read The airplane pilot
requested an en route altitude of 3500 feet.and
The tower controller advised the airplane and the pilot of
another helicopter operating in the area of each other and
instructed the pilot of the airplane to remain at or below
1,100 feet.I understand this to be, that as soon as the plane had cleared the other helicopter, it should be told to continue climb to requested altitude. However, no such instruction from TEB was given, only At 1152:20 the Teterboro controller instructed
the pilot to contact Newark on a frequency of 127.85So a likely scenario would be;
The pilot have continued at 1100', changed the frequency to Newark, but not immediately contacted them. Therefore, he would not have heard the calls from TEB or the helicopters position report on the CTAF, and when Newark seemingly did not try to call the plane(no callsign at hand?!), but instead called TEB to ask them to resolve the conflict, the faith was set.
As for the helicopter-pilot, he would most likely be on CTAF only, and not got a reply on his pos-report indicating no traffic in the vicinity concerning his route.

puntosaurus,
'see and avoid' is a myth.
Yeah, right!!

Controllers also stuff up from time to time as well, some with a slightly worse outcome than others though.
I have had controllers line me up head to head with a MD87 circling to land, which is not so nice regardless of machine you're in.:eek:
Same tower managed to do the same thing with a DC9 and a 747, resulting in a TCAS solution.
Being told by ATC to alter course due to oncoming traffic even a vertical seperation of no less than 5000 feet!!!
Being told to decend below 1500 feet outside a controllzone and report traffic in sight(Airbus..somehting) due to approaching traffic to an airport 16NM away. I could barely see the airplane!!:rolleyes: List is much longer....:(

An old rule I heard in when in pilot-training.
1.ATC f..k up: ATC lives, pilot dies
2.Mechanic f..k up: Mechanic lives, pilot dies
3.Pilot f..k up, pilot dies, ATC and Mechanic lives, unless pilot give Mechanic a lift and crashes with the tower....


The following should never have been possible, and I'm sure that if you had tried to make this happen it wouldn't have. Talking about the holes in the swiss cheese lining up.....
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/58312-mid-air-collision-over-southern-germany-merged.html

FH1100 and Gordy:ok:

rick1128,

As for the JAR's, can you just immagine how the JAR's would look if they would have stated the things you're NOT allowed to do.

The FAA is not trying to be the "back seat-nanny" as the European CAA trying to be. Accidents happen in Europe too despite lots of more restrictions and less trafficdensity.

[PaperTiger]

The real help in the Hudson corridor might be for the Feds to raise the ceiling for the VFR traffic? Like the regulators did over Wycombe? And then let the recommendations for keeping to the right up river, left downstream, , helis below l,500 and fixed wing between l,800 and 3,000, why not?The corridor ceiling is there for a good reason - JFK, LGA and EWR ! Conceivably it could be raised slightly, but that won't happen. Keep helos below 500 until out of the corridor.I understand this to be, that as soon as the plane had cleared the other helicopter, it should be told to continue climb to requested altitude.Not in the corridor. See above.

[protectthehornet]

sadly

the first and only duty of ATC is the seperation of IFR traffic from IFR traffic.

everything else is secondary, workload permitting sort of thing.

I am unclear...was the floor of the TCA/B airspace 1100 feet? if so, why was the copter at 1100 feet and not 1099 feet or below?

[Nubian]

Papertiger,

I understand that's the case, IF the plane's intentions was to stay clear of the Newark airspace, and following the corridor. However, the pilot had requested 3500' enroute, meaning he would have been IN the Newark class B enroute, and maintaining radiocontact with Newark.
But due to the other helicopter-traffic(not the Liberty-machine), the plane was told to stay at 1100', not??
If the intentions for the plane was to stay clear of Newark and follow the corridor, then WHY was he told to contact Newark then?? Does not make any sence. Operating around the San Fransisco Bay as one example, I have dodged SFO class B and OAK Class C in/out and around the other airports without having to talk to either of the above as long as I stay clear of the mentioned airspace(that's the whole point of staying clear isn't it?!) Can you tell me why in the case of the Hudson River corridor, things would be diffrent??

[darrenphughes]

I understand that's the case, IF the plane's intentions was to stay clear of the Newark airspace, and following the corridor. However, the pilot had requested 3500' enroute, meaning he would have been IN the Newark class B enroute, and maintaining radiocontact with Newark.
But due to the other helicopter-traffic(not the Liberty-machine), the plane was told to stay at 1100', not??
If the intentions for the plane was to stay clear of Newark and follow the corridor, then WHY was he told to contact Newark then?? Does not make any sence.

Having dealt with Teterboro a good few times, and requested the November/Linden routing back through Newark airspace which would require a handoff from them to Newark tower, and clearance into Bravo airspace. I've been vectored into the exclusion on occasion, having requested that route. I was never quite sure why that was. I got the feeling that they were either too busy to deal with a hand off over such a short distance or that they couldn't be arsed. I think the later is unlikely as ATC for the most part do try their best for us, but it is still possible.

By keeping the plane below 1100, he would have been keeping him clear of Bravo until the plane got the specific clearance from Newark tower to enter the Bravo. Maybe there wasn't enough time for TEB to hand off to EWR and for them to give the Clearance to Bravo before the plane busted Bravo airspace. By keeping him under the Bravo it possibly kept the regs from being violated.

Then there's also the possibility that 3500' in that area could have put that plane in the separation zone needed for aircraft on final for runway 22 at Newark.

But this is just pure speculation on my behalf(well maybe a little educated speculation).

[PaperTiger]

I think the filing to 3500 was only a part of the flight plan. Once through the corridor EWR would be the facility to issue an enroute climb clearance, so he (PA32) was told to contact them before and after transit.

[berniecta]

I don't want to advertise an instrument or another, and considering tcas way too expensive and useful mainly for the big birds, I have an idea on how to constantly be aware of traffic in the vicinity without the use of ATC, which is not needed if you fly outside controlled airspace or even worse by making the corridor a controlled airspace which would mean the end of plane and heli rides around manhattan. Gliders in europe have started fitting a small instrument (as cockpits are small and cramped up to every usable inch) called Flarm or another one called T-Advisor DSX. Apart the fact that later model didn't see each other any more for some strange commercial reason, fitting these instruments on gliders reduced significantly the possibility of an air mishaps alongside ridges or thermalling up together with many others in the same thermal. Both instruments work with GPS and a small transmitter that locate other similar instruments in the vicinity that is then displayed as a small led lighting up around your plane in the direction of the interested traffic. I did flew the corridor once with an instructor from nassau flyers and enjoyed it very much. visibility was probably less the 3 miles after abeam central park, but we were still able to spot a banner towed by a PA18, slower than our 172, we just duck a couple hundred feet and overtook him. As an italian ATCo I'm against the idea to rely such huge amount of heterogeneous traffic to atc, as it would surely impact on the availability and economy of said route, especially as it would have little radar coverage and a very narrow space to keep them separeted, but that is just my opinion.

[Piper_Driver]

Looks like a difference of opinion is starting between NTSB and the controller's union:

Controllers: NTSB report on Hudson collision wrong - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090817/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_mid_air_collision)

[chester2005]

"Plenty of voices are calling immediate action of some sort in the wake of last week's midair collision over the Hudson River. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been a welcome voice on reason amid the clamor"



Hudson MidAir: Let The Howling Begin
August 10, 2009
By Paul Bertorelli

In the wake of an accident like the unfortunate midair between a helicopter and a Lance in New York's Hudson corridor over the weekend, being in the aviation press isn't so much like waiting for the other shoe to drop as it is trying to count how many shoes zing by. Predictably, New York Senator Charles "I-Never-Met-a–Rule-I-Didn't-Like" Schumer called for more regulation. Refreshingly, New York's level-headed mayor, Michael Bloomberg, counseled for everyone to take a deep breath. He performed a similar function when Cory Lidle flew into an East Side apartment building in 2006 while trying to extricate himself from the East River corridor.

To general aviation's considerable benefit, Bloomberg is a pilot and an aircraft owner, so not only does he get it, he's in a position to explain to the general public exactly what they have to get, too. The "it" I am referring to here is understanding relative risk and learning to live with the fact that when you get into any kind of airborne conveyance, there's always the remote chance it will come violently back to earth and you'll be injured or killed. Gravity is said to be one of the universe's weakest forces, but it is, if nothing else, relentless.

I've flown the Hudson corridor so much that I've lost count. Sometimes it's busy, sometimes it's deserted. Often, you'll drive yourself to distraction looking for an airplane you hear on the self-announce frequencies but never see. Given the volume of traffic over the river, the number of accidents is trivially small, as is the risk. There are more fatal accidents on the Palisades Parkway running on the Jersey side of the river than there are in the air over it.

Already, I'm seeing calls for requiring ADS-B or TCAS generally or in the corridor. While these systems are certainly an option, pilots, owners and operators will have to spend a ton of money to install them to mitigate what is, in the end, a tiny risk. And that applies to mid-air collisions everywhere. In the grand scheme of things, if you eliminated every GA mid-air collision, you'd move the accident rate needle a little, but not much. There are a dozen or fewer fatal mid-airs each year, against 1800 or so total GA accidents, 350 to 400 of which are fatal.

One city official suggested banning sightseeing helicopters, but that's silly. Like the Grand Canyon, New York's skyline is a great national treasure and anyone who wants to should have the right to see it. The mechanisms to manage the risk are in place—well understood rules of the road and published self-announce frequencies, radar advisories—to make it a reasonably safe thing to do. But that doesn't mean you still can't get killed doing it, a risk that applies to everything from going to the dentist to changing a light bulb.

Which is exactly what Michael Bloomberg was saying and to which I reply: Right on, your honor.

Copyright Aviation Publishing Group

[slowrotor]

Berniecta posted: "Gliders in europe have started fitting a small instrument (as cockpits are small and cramped up to every usable inch) called Flarm or another one called T-Advisor DSX. "

I did a google search of these products. Very interesting.
Surely, the FAA could fund something affordable like this. And make it heads up, instead of on the panel.
slowrotor

[Tfor2]

Since that is what it's mostly used for, seriously.

Planes at 1,000 to 1100 feet, helicopters below with appropriate separation. Enter from George Washington Bridge, the other end would be the Statue of Liberty, to turn around and fly back to the bridge and exit.

No entering from the side, no transitting except in controlled airspace above, say, 1,200 feet.

This unique tourist attraction would be retained, and everybody should be happy. Like gazing into the Grand Canyon. Yes? :)

[RatherBeFlying]

Berniecta posted: "Gliders in europe have started fitting a small instrument (as cockpits are small and cramped up to every usable inch) called Flarm or another one called T-Advisor DSX. "

I did a google search of these products. Very interesting.
Surely, the FAA could fund something affordable like this. And make it heads up, instead of on the panel.
slowrotorIf today, some inventor demonstrated a $25 device that showed you all traffic of concern that you could velcro to the top of the panel and run on a battery good for 50 years, it would take ICAO and the various CAA's upwards of 15 years to certify and mandate it:}

[robertbartsch]

I've been trying to keep up with the developments on this investigation, so sorry to all if this question has been discussed earlier.

It was reported a day or two after the crash that the fixed wing had lost an engine before impact; has this been confirmed?

The video that surfaced a few days after is not conclusive to me - anyway. It looks like the prop is turning when the two crafts hit but I can't see if the prop is turning at full or near full power.

There have been a couple of recent reports on the Teeterboro controllers and but nothing I know of related to possible communication to controllers of engine failure on the winged craft.

Thx.

[berniecta]

If today, some inventor demonstrated a $25 device that showed you all traffic of concern that you could velcro to the top of the panel and run on a battery good for 50 years, it would take ICAO and the various CAA's upwards of 15 years to certify and mandate ithttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

It's not that cheap, in Italy it's sold for €575 + vat for the basic model, anyway since there is still an open debate on whether both system should see and talk to each other, while profitability and competition seems to play a higher role then safety, it might take even longer for the various CAA to approve it as a mandatory equipment, as the basic rule of thumb says, if you can't see and avoid, don't fly vfr, isn't it? (Even if we all sometime had breached VFR just for a little bit and nothing ever happened, but as flight safety might say, even a small breach could mean a not broken link to the chain that leads to an accident,,,)

[visibility3miles]

It's very busy airspace. Having something or someone warn about nearby traffic might help, but as some early posts on this thread indicated, pilots need to focus on "see and avoid" while passengers sight-see. Still, you can't look everywhere at once. This was a rare event.

Even turning to avoid the collision may have caused the plane's wing to strike the helicopter, leading to the unrecoverable situation for both.

Teterboro Airport - AirportMonitor - by Megadata - powered by PASSUR (http://www4.passur.com/teb.html)

[toptobottom]

I got flamed at the mere mention of some regulation (despite the number of near misses and with no mention of what that regulation might be - even self regulation). The message was "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen; we're safe enough" :ugh: Not sure that the NTSB will see things quite that way...

However, since we've all been 'surprised' by another aircraft suddenly appearing rather close by at some time or another and in the interests of safety, I think the Flarm and T-Advisor DSX type products would be a big step forward - but they're still quite expensive.

We know GPS based proximity alert features already exist in a number cell phone applications for marketing promotions, dating apps, etc. It wouldn't be at all difficult for say, Garmin, to develop this and market it as a cost effective option (even an upgrade) on all it's aviation products. It would still rely on other aircraft having the same system, but without the need to buy additional hardware, this would be much easier and cheaper to roll out.

Sounds like an opportunity for someone :ok:

[birrddog]

ttb, some of the Garmin units (430, 530 I believe) already have something like this, though I believe it requires transponders and to be painted by radar in order for them to get the data.

Been a while since I used a unit like that (and recall turning it off in because of too many false alerts), so someone with more recent experience might be able to enlighten us.

[estrellafugaz]

it happened few weeks ago.. now they got the tape from a guy who was just using his brand new camera for the first time, on a boat on the hudson.

hard to watch.

TAKEOFF TUBE - Mid air crash over the hudson caught on tape (http://www.takeofftube.com/view/2370/Mid%20air%20crash%20over%20the%20hudson%20caught%20on%20tape/&feature=active_sharing)

[JBL99]

Thanks estrellafugaz, but this had already been posted a while ago!

[estrellafugaz]

ops sorry! i just bumped into it.. and i wanted to share it.
will read more carefully next time :) :}

[Piper_Driver]

The NTSB preliminary report is out. Nothing new to report that hasn't been detailed on this thread.

ERA09MA447B (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20090808X42846&key=2)

NTSB Identification: ERA09MA447B
Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter
Accident occurred Saturday, August 08, 2009 in Hoboken, NJ
Aircraft: EUROCOPTER AS 350 BA, registration: 401LH
Injuries: 9 Fatal.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On August 8, 2009, about 1153 eastern daylight time, a Piper PA-32R-300 airplane, N71MC, operated by a private pilot, and a Eurocopter AS350 BA helicopter, N401LH, operated by Liberty Helicopters, were substantially damaged following a midair collision over the Hudson River near Hoboken, New Jersey. The certificated private pilot and two passengers aboard the airplane and the certificated commercial pilot and five passengers aboard the helicopter and were killed. The airplane flight was a personal flight conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91.The helicopter flight was a local sightseeing flight conducted under the provisions of 14 CFR Parts 135 and 136. The airplane departed Teterboro Airport (TEB), Teterboro, New Jersey, about 1149, destined for Ocean City Municipal Airport, Ocean City, New Jersey. The helicopter departed West 30th Street Heliport, New York, New York, about 1152. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plans were required or filed for either flight. However, the pilot of the airplane requested flight-following services from TEB air traffic control (ATC).

The pilot of the accident airplane contacted the clearance delivery controller in the TEB ATC tower about 1140:01, requesting departure clearance and VFR radar traffic advisory service en route to Ocean City, New Jersey, at 3,500 feet. The pilot's requested route and altitude required that the flight enter the class B airspace overlying TEB. The clearance delivery controller issued the pilot a discrete transponder code. While the airplane was taxiing to the runway, the TEB local controller offered the pilot the choice of departing TEB straight out or over the river. The pilot elected to fly down the Hudson River, which necessitated eventual coordination with controllers at EWR for authorization to climb into the class B airspace. However, existing procedures did not require TEB controllers to coordinate for a class B clearance for the pilot, and the local controller did not do so.

The accident airplane departed TEB about 1149 and the local controller advised the pilot of a helicopter arriving at the airport. The local controller instructed the pilot to remain at or below 1,100 feet. At this time, the tower controller initiated a non-business-related phone call to Teterboro Airport Operations which lasted until about one second prior to the collision. The airplane flew southbound until the local controller instructed the pilot to turn left (southeast) and join the Hudson River. About 1152:20, the pilot acknowledged an instruction from the TEB local controller to change frequencies and contact controllers at EWR. A preliminary review of recorded ATC communications showed that the pilot did not contact EWR before the accident. About 1153:17, about the time of the accident, the TEB local controller contacted the EWR controller to ask about the airplane and was told that the pilot had not called. There are no known additional ATC contacts with the airplane. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has not determined what frequency the pilot was monitoring at the time of the accident.

The accident helicopter departed from the 30th Street Heliport, which is in the Hudson River class B exclusion area, about 1152, for a 12-minute tour. The initial part of the tour was to be flown below class B airspace, so the pilot was not required to contact ATC. Although the nature of any transmissions made by aircraft on the CTAF is not known because the CTAF is not recorded, a Liberty Helicopters’ pilot waiting to depart from the heliport reported that the pilot of the accident helicopter made a position report on the CTAF just before the collision. The first radar target for the accident helicopter was detected by the Federal Aviation Administration's EWR radar site about 1152:27, when the helicopter was west of the heliport, approximately mid river, and climbing through 400 feet. According to recorded radar data, the helicopter flew to the west side of the river and then turned south to follow the Hudson River. The accident helicopter continued climbing southbound until 1153:14, when the collision occurred.

Radar data and witness statements indicate that the aircraft collided at 1,100 feet in the vicinity of Stevens Point. Most of the wreckage fell into the Hudson River; however, some small debris from the airplane, including the right main landing gear wheel, fell on land within the city limits of Hoboken. The collision was witnessed by numerous people in the area of the accident and was immediately reported to local emergency responders. The helicopter was recovered on August 9, 2009. Most of the helicopter components were accounted for at the scene, with the exception of the main rotor and transmission. The airplane was recovered on August 11, 2009. Most of the airplane components were accounted for at the scene, with the exception of both wings. The wreckage of both aircraft were subsequently transported to a secure facility in Delaware.

The pilot of the airplane, age 60, held a private pilot certificate, with ratings for airplane single-engine land, airplane multiengine land and instrument airplane. His most recent FAA third-class medical certificate was issued on May 14, 2009. At that time he reported a total flight experience of 1,020 hours.

The pilot of the helicopter, age 32, held a commercial pilot certificate, with ratings for rotorcraft helicopter and instrument helicopter. His most recent FAA second-class medical certificate was issued on June 16, 2009. At that time he reported a total flight experience of 3,010 hours.

Digital photographs and a video recording taken by witnesses to the accident have been provided to the NTSB. In addition, a digital camera was recovered from the helicopter. All of these were sent to the NTSB Vehicle Recorders Laboratory in Washington, D.C. for further examination. Global Positioning System units were recovered from both aircraft and also forwarded to the NTSB Vehicle Recorders Laboratory.

The recorded weather at TEB at 1151 was wind variable at 3 knots, visibility 10 miles, sky clear, temperature 24 degrees Celsius, dew point 7 degrees Celsius, altimeter
30.23 inches of mercury.Index for Aug2009 (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/AccList.asp?month=8&year=2009) | Index of months (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Month.asp)

[slowrotor]

Would the airplane pilot normally be listening to ATC and CTAF at the same time while flying this VFR corridor?

If not, then this could be a problem, I think.
slowrotor

[stepwilk]

There is no ATC in the corridor, which I've flown any number of times. The only "ATC" is a voluntary system of pilots communicating their location at certain informal reporting points,on a common frequency. The corridor has no radar coverage, so how could there be ATC?

[slowrotor]

Thanks stepwilk,
but read post #200, the pilot requested flight following: "However, the pilot of the airplane requested flight-following services from TEB air traffic control (ATC)."


I have encountered this myself in my local area. With just one radio, I need to decide if I want to ask for radar flight following or listen to CTAF.

My question is: what do pilots do in this situation?
slowrotor

[stepwilk]

Well, I don't know if that's accurate, but who does the flight following? TEB tower? I don't think so, they're busy enough. EWR departure or local? I doubt that too, since they can't see you on radar and have better things to do anyway.

It's fine to request flight following if you're cutting a corner to go over the Gulf of Mexico or traversing a mountainous region, but to think "flight following" will help you in the zoo that is the Hudson Corridor is insane.

Imagine: a private pilot from the UK could come over here, rent a 172 and barrel down the Hudson Corridor keeping to the left, as he or she might be wont to do. No law against it. Other airplanes, if he's even on the frequency, are reporting local-knowledge points with shorthand names that those of us who fly around New York know, but there's no requirement that anybody else does.

So much of the discussion of this accident has focused on this or that measure of "control," including the red herring that the TEB tower controller was on the phone to his girlfriend, which had nothing to do with anything other than the fact that he chose the worst possible time he might have to discuss with his squeeze barbequeing a cat.

Can't anybody understand that there is NO CONTROL in the corridor, no approach, no departure, no ATC, no flight following, other than see-and-avoid and the basically informal procedures about position reporting that have been put in place over the years? Nothing wrong with that, it has worked for years.

Frankly, the only thing I'd wonder about is entering the corridor from the side. I've always considered it "a tunnel": come in at the GWB, exit at the SoL. And vice-versa.

[slowrotor]

Are you saying the airplane pilot should have been listening on CTAF when entering the corridor instead of talking to the tower and requesting flight following?

[stepwilk]

He should have been listening to the common frequency that the Corridor transients use to report their positions to each other. Why should he listen to a CTAF, effective in a five-DME radius of the tower?

[mary meagher]

I am pleased to see that the NTSB has adopted my suggestion of "Separate altitudes for flights over the Hudson River....the NTSB is recommending major changes to air traffic over the Hudson River, including having helicopters and planes fly at separate altitudes....... according to the New York Times this morning. See my previous posts on this thread.......

[slowrotor]

stepwilk,
CTAF is Common Traffic Advisory Frequency.
It is used for airport areas and also used for regions as well. I don't have a New York area chart, but on my Seattle chart there is a large area around the San Juan Islands. A little box on the chart shows: " CTAF in vicinity of San Juan Islands is 128.25MHZ.

I am interested in this point because I recently did a BFR with a new instructor. He strongly suggested the use of "VFR Flight Following".
I decided to give flight following a try in the San Juan Island area, so I called Whidbey Approach for this. Unfortunately, while on the approach frequency, I was unable to monitor the San Juan area CTAF.

So now, I think the suggestion from the instructor to always request VFR Flight Following was not the best plan for this region.

And maybe not the best plan for the Hudson corridor.

slowrotor

[Oldnow]

Sorry if this has already been covered.

In a conversation with a fellow NY based Helo pilot, I was made aware that in the accident Astar, the pilot seat was located on the left side of the aircraft to accomodate an extra seat up front. Yet another factor as well as the low-wing configuration of the airplane.

I'll just chime in on what I thought was the reason for the Piper to be in the position he was in at the time. He was right on the edge of the class bravo and hadn't been cleared in. He had no choice, regulatorily speaking, than to fly below 1100' until he'd been cleared in. Listening and broadcasting on two freq's, while possible, may not have worked either way. He was between the proverbial rock and other place. Someone mentioned that radar coverage wasn't possible at the altitudes involved, and this couldn't be further from the truth. Even LGA will aquire an aircraft at around 600' on the Hudson, despite the buildings.

To my recollection, I've never been refused a clearance down the Hudson at 1500'. Perhaps fixed-wing aircraft could be limited to above 1000'/below 1500' and given that airspace to fly without the need for ATC clearance although I don't know all the vagaries of how the airspace is sliced up ATC-wise.

I understand from a news crawl that there may be a decision today on new regulation resulting from this mishap.

Keep your head on a swivel and watch out for the monkey wrench.

:ok:

[toptobottom]

I am pleased to see that the NTSB has adopted my suggestion of "Separate altitudes for flights over the Hudson River....the NTSB is recommending major changes to air traffic over the Hudson River, including having helicopters and planes fly at separate altitudes....... according to the New York Times this morning. See my previous posts on this thread.......

Well, well, well - the NTSB is recommending separate alts for FW and RW, eh?! Also see my posts 163 and 175:ugh:

Looks like new regulation is on its way - shock, horror! :}

[Phil77]

Compare that with the NTSB declaration that there have been 8 accidents in the Hudson River area in the last 14 years and introducing new procedures would seem to be a no-brainer.

ok toptobottom, I've looked at your posts and wonder if you could please provide a link to the statement of the NTSB that there were 8 accidents in the last 8 years involving aircraft in flight - excluding landing and takeoff phases close to the pad, because those are entirely unrelated to this accident.

Edit: NTSB Safety Recommendation from August 27, 2009 (see my next post):
"The NTSB has no record of previous collisions between aircraft operating in the Hudson River class B exclusion area"

[Phil77]

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.

:confused:

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!? :ugh:


PS: BTW: nothing of the positive safety record mentioned it the NTSB document has made it into the NY Times article, of course! :*

[Oldnow]

Fyi

!fdc 9/3952 Zny Ny.. Special Notice.. Hudson And East Rivers,
New York City, New York. Due To A High Density Of Uncontrolled
Helicopter And Fixed Wing Traffic Operating On The Hudson And East
River Class B Exclusion Areas, Pilots Are Advised To Follow The
Guidelines Set Forth Below Prior To Entering This Airspace:
A. Self Announce On 123.075 For The East River And 123.05 For The
Hudson River.
B. Announce Intended Route On Initial Contact
C. Turn On Anti-collision, Position/navigation, And/or Landing
Lights.
D. Do Not Exceed 140 Knots Ias.
These Recommendations Do Not Relieve Pilots Of Compliance With
Applicable Federal Aviation Regulations, Including Regulations
Governing Minimum Safe Altitudes, And See And Avoid Responsibilities.
Pilots Are Strongly Advised And Encouraged To Adhere To The
Procedures Set Forth In This Special Notice And Adhere To All
Applicable Faa Publications, Charts And Communication Protocols While
Operating In The New York Area.

[slowrotor]

I think stepwilk got it right with the comment: "It's fine to request flight following if you're cutting a corner to go over the Gulf of Mexico or traversing a mountainous region, but to think "flight following" will help you in the zoo that is the Hudson Corridor is insane."

[birrddog]

Under the new configuration, a general aviation pilot could fly in a newly designated corridor above other general aviation traffic, yet be under the direction of air traffic controllers, a slight variation from current practice.

A second altitude corridor, from 1,000 to 1,300 feet, would be for planes to fly above other traffic but use, as a main means of avoiding collision, a technique called “see and avoid” — basically, meaning that pilots look out their windows to spot other aircraft.

A third airspace would be created for all aircraft operating under 1,000 feet, Ms. Brown said.

In the two lower-altitude corridors, the rules that would become mandatory include: Requiring pilots to tune their radio to a frequency of 123.05, known as the common traffic advisory frequency, and to announce their description, location, direction and altitude when entering the area; requiring southbound planes and copters to hug the New Jersey coastline and northbound ones to hew closely to the West Side of Manhattan; setting speeds at 140 knots or less for all aircraft; and requiring pilots to turn on anti-collision devices, navigation equipment and landing lights.

Any pilots of fixed-wing airplanes leaving Teterboro Airport, in New Jersey, would have to enter the uncontrolled air corridor via a special route over the George Washington Bridge. If those pilots desired to fly into controlled airspace, the controllers at Teterboro would have to gain approval from their counterparts at Newark Liberty International Airport (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/newark_liberty_international_airport_nj/index.html?inline=nyt-org) before takeoff.

As for the training programs the aviation agency said it intends to develop, Ms. Brown said they would be added to pilots’ routine training but would not be mandatory for all pilots.

“We are requiring that if you operate in that airspace, you know the rules,” Ms. Brown said, adding, “There will be multiple ways that pilots can learn the rules.”Full article from the NY Times over here (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/nyregion/03faa.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss).

[birrddog]

Another human error may have contributed to last month's fatal collision involving two aircraft over the Hudson River.The National Transportation Safety Board says in radio transmissions an air traffic controller is heard giving the radio frequency for Newark Liberty airport to the pilot of the small plane involved.
When the pilot read it back, the frequency was incorrect, and officials say there was no indication that he was ever told otherwise.

The single-engine Piper plane collided with a tour helicopter on August 8, killing nine people.

Previously, federal officials had said the controller, who they say was on the phone at the time of the collision, should have warned the pilot about other aircraft in the area.
From NY1...article here (http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/105839/ntsb--human-error-contributed-to-fatal-hudson-crash/Default.aspx).

[rick1128]

I attended a meeting on Tuesday evening held by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Assoc. (AOPA) that discussed the new proposed regs for the corridor. Two of the panel members had just gotten back from Washington where they were part of the committee that drafted the proposal.

A few items have come out of the investigation.

First, both aircraft did have some form of traffic avoidance equipment.

Second, Teterboro tower was not able to issue Class B clearances

The new proposal will now make both exclusions an SFAR area similar to Washington DC in that it will require special training to enter these areas. Aircraft entering these areas will have to have not only a transponder but also an operating comm radio (which is presently not required). Further more local traffic will be restricted to below 1000' MSL and transit traffic to 1000' MSL to 1299' MSL. Local traffic is defined presently as traffic that is either landing or departing the three local heliports and the 23rd St. dock. All other traffic is considered transit and must enter above the George Washington Bridge or below the Verazono Bridge and depart the river after either of these two fixes.

There will be 6 required reporting points that must be reported with aircraft type, color, position, altitude, direction and I can't remember the last item. Aircraft must stay on the right side of the river. TEB tower will now be able to issue Class B clearances. There will be a 'tunnel' for lack of a better word of class B airspace above the river from 1300" MSL to 2000" MSL for traffic that wants to fly the river but stay in Class B. There will be two altitudes one at 1500' MSL and one at 2000' MSL. One altitude for Southbound and one for Northbound and because I didn't right it down I can't remember which is which. Also the airspace around the Wall St. heliport will be moved to the East River common freq. to free up radio air time for the Hudson. Also any aircraft transiting the exclusions MUST have a current Terminal chart of Helicopter Route chart readily available in the aircraft. Further more the FAA will change the Terminal chart to include the exclusion areas in more detail. Presently the helicopter routes are shown on the back of the Terminal chart, but they only show lower Manhattan with little detail. This I believe will change to a larger map with greater detail.

The Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) was suppose to be issued yesterday. However, I didn't see it come out. It may have been because Congress was still beating up on the FAA yesterday about this issue. Not everyone was happy about the proposal, which is usual. A few segments of the industry may have been overlooked. This proposal is not the final rule and MAY change before it comes come out and most likely will. It did not separate traffic by aircraft type as the politicians wanted, so it is in my opinion a much fairer proposal than what we could have had.

AOPA Air Safety Foundation stated at the meeting that they will highly likely have an online training course for transiting this airspace in the near future.

[darrenphughes]

I was there also Rick,
It almost turned farcical several times with the accusatory questions and comments coming from both the Fixed wing and Rotorcraft sides. Thank god they managed to just about reign in the discussion before it got out of hand. Like one of the panel members said, "if the discussion devolves into a Helicopter versus Airplane one, we all lose".

Second, Teterboro tower was not able to issue Class B clearances

The vibe I was getting on that discussion was that TEB were always able to issue the Class B clearance, but that they had gotten into a mode of going out of their way to avoid it, while instructing departing traffic to avoid the Bravo. I may be wrong on that, but that's what I took from it.


There will be a 'tunnel' for lack of a better word of class B airspace above the river from 1300" MSL to 2000" MSL for traffic that wants to fly the river but stay in Class B. There will be two altitudes one at 1500' MSL and one at 2000' MSL. One altitude for Southbound and one for Northbound and because I didn't right it down I can't remember which is which.

I'm pretty sure it was 1500' Northbound and 2000' Southbound.

Local traffic is defined presently as traffic that is either landing or departing the three local heliports and the 23rd St. dock. All other traffic is considered transit and must enter above the George Washington Bridge or below the Verazono Bridge and depart the river after either of these two fixes.

Though when questioned by the very unhappy audience on the definition of "Local Traffic", It seemed that even the panel members had a fundamental disagreement on that one.

I think that they were pushed into that meeting too early by the pressure of being watched by the "Media" and politicians. They probably should have waited until they had taken the time to do a more comprehensive study and everyone involved in the final outcome were on the same page.

It was pretty funny to hear everyone rip on Senator Chuck Schumer though!!:D

[rick1128]

Darren,

I got that TEB had to co-ordinate with Newark in the past but couldn't issue the clearance itself, they could only hand the aircraft off to Newark.

A lot of the fixed wing folks seemed to be upset with the small area that transit traffic was given, but like the panel said, it comes down to numbers. When 60% or more of the traffic is operating into or out of the 3 heliports or 23rd, the proposed system does make sense. As for the definition of local traffic, I agree that the panel didn't have a firm handle on it, but that definition is quite likely to change to some degree.

I do not believe that they were pushed into doing the meeting. They had just gotten back from Washington and they really needed to present this information to the local aviation community so that we could be prepared for the notice of proposed rulemaking. So we could comment and make our views heard. I got the feeling that if we don't, the politicians, like what's his name? will force the issue to their point of view. Speaking of the NPRM, it was suppose to be issued Wednesday, but has not been issued as of close of business today.

I was discomforted by some peoples' idea to make changes to the south shore routing. Considering where it is, raise the ceiling would cause that exclusion to go totally away. However, I would like to see a CTAF freq in place for that airspace.

[Pat Cox]

NTSB - Hudson River Collision (http://www.ntsb.gov/Speeches/hersman/daph090916-Animation-Description.htm)

Note the Piper's erroneous frequency readback at 11:52:20 and TEB's subsequent "he's lost in the hertz try him again" comment at 11:52:42.

[chester2005]

Anyone who knew Jeremy Clarke the pilot of the helicopter may want to check out you tube

yRMIuIqZO8E

RIP Jeremy, a Friend

Chester

[Piper_Driver]

They've released the audio recording of the TET controller that handled the Piper prior to the crash. The article with the link is here:

Chuckling, joking in control tower before NY crash - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091008/ap_on_go_ot/us_mid_air_collision)

[autorotor]

I am very touched....

[eastsidewillie]

i don't often post to the forum, having been away from aviation for nearly twenty years, but i was touched by the tribute to jeremy clark, and felt i had to add my two cents. i'm the guy who wrote the operational guidelines for the east river exclusion back in the early '80's (yeah, i know, you'll never find it attributed to me but i did it, and later on it was adopted by the helicopter pilots association and forced on the faa ((faa were a bunch of losers, and unconcerned, i can attest to that)) ). we ran one of the busiest heliports in the usa, or the world, for a decade by the seat of our pants (my chair was a 55 gallon drum with a pillow), and once our "rules" were in place, we never had an incident that involved a major conflict with airlcraft in the corridor, despite incursions from private aircraft, float planes, and others (nypd, military, etc.) who would avoid talking on the frequency.
know what?...**** happens (i was there when the nypd copter collided with a float plane over lower manhattan, and that's part of the reason i drew up some "rules", and if ya don't wanna fly by any "rules", ya probably shouldn't be in the air. i worked with some of the best, including a tuskegee veteran, and i learned what it takes to survive. in the best of circumstances, bad things will still happen, but your safety and life depend on going "by the book"; unfortunately, if there is no book, y'er on your own. the faa is a waste, as far as i'm concerned, a sad joke that the general public believes is looking out for their safety, and until some simple commonsense rules are posted, or mandated, or whatever, for this area, **** will happen again.
again, i post this, having been touched by the tribute to jeremy, so much like the captains i knew and worked with and loved.