Mid-Air Collision Over New York.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Separate altitudes suggested by NTSB
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.......
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Townsend,WA. USA
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: passaic nj
Age: 67
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class B
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.
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.
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.......
Looks like new regulation is on its way - shock, horror!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA (PA)
Age: 47
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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"
Last edited by Phil77; 28th Aug 2009 at 22:31. Reason: include quotation from NTSB document
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA (PA)
Age: 47
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
...and then, a couple of pages later:
Establish better procedures? sure, why not!
Develop a good how-to video and suggest it on the chart? good idea!
But impose regulations just because of one accident? No sir!
NTSB recommendations can be a good thing - not necessarily reasonable, but hey, they are exactly that, only 'recommendations'. As far as how well the FAA and the NTSB work together when one tries to invade somebody else's turf (sorry "recommending a change"): look how many (good) recommendations made by the NTSB for the EMS industry have been adapted by the FAA!?
PS: BTW: nothing of the positive safety record mentioned it the NTSB document has made it into the NY Times article, of course!
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.
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.
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.
The NTSB is concerned that the voluntary measures, such as recommended procedures annotated on the New York VFR Terminal Area Chart and the New York Helicopter Route Chart, currently in use to educate pilots on safe operations within the area may not be sufficient to achieve this objective.
Establish better procedures? sure, why not!
Develop a good how-to video and suggest it on the chart? good idea!
But impose regulations just because of one accident? No sir!
NTSB recommendations can be a good thing - not necessarily reasonable, but hey, they are exactly that, only 'recommendations'. As far as how well the FAA and the NTSB work together when one tries to invade somebody else's turf (sorry "recommending a change"): look how many (good) recommendations made by the NTSB for the EMS industry have been adapted by the FAA!?
PS: BTW: nothing of the positive safety record mentioned it the NTSB document has made it into the NY Times article, of course!
Last edited by Phil77; 28th Aug 2009 at 22:44.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: passaic nj
Age: 67
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NOTAM
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.
!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.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Townsend,WA. USA
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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."
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Where I'm pointing...
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA Proposes new rules for New York Corridors to be established by Nov 19
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 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.”
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 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.”
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Where I'm pointing...
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NTSB update
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: An Irish dude in Houston, TX. I miss home!!!
Age: 43
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
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.
I'm pretty sure it was 1500' Northbound and 2000' Southbound.
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!!
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
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.
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.
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!!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: S. California & N. Dakota, USA
Age: 64
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NTSB 2-D & 3-D animation link
NTSB - Hudson River Collision
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.
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.
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
Chuckling, joking in control tower before NY crash - Yahoo! News
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: new jersey, usa
Age: 78
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just hadda post
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.
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.
