Mid-Air Collision Over New York.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: castelli romani
Age: 51
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: chester uk
Age: 53
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Townsend,WA. USA
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A corridor dedicated for sight-seeing purposes only
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?
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?
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did the plane loose the engine?
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: castelli romani
Age: 51
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 it
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
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
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" 
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Where I'm pointing...
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: BCN
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Midair collision over the hudson piper(?)-helicopter on tape
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
hard to watch.
TAKEOFF TUBE - Mid air crash over the hudson caught on tape
The NTSB preliminary report is out. Nothing new to report that hasn't been detailed on this thread.
ERA09MA447B
ERA09MA447B
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 | Index of months
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 | Index of months
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Townsend,WA. USA
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
If not, then this could be a problem, I think.
slowrotor
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Townsend,WA. USA
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Townsend,WA. USA
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?