Mid-Air Collision Over New York.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The photo is frightening
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.
Last edited by topendtorque; 9th Aug 2009 at 13:02.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nouvion
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Having taken that helicopter trip in the past , the photo's are truely frightening....very tragic .
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA (PA)
Age: 47
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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! 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BigEndBob
Wouldn't it be simpler to restrict heli's to not above 500 feet and fixed wing not below 800 feet?
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
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: CO 81224
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: earth
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads-23/announcements.html
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
As far as I know, flight following by ATC is at the pilot's discretion.
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA (PA)
Age: 47
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Townsend,WA. USA
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
slowrotor....
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......
The only way to prevent midair collisions....
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: KSAN
Age: 62
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad setup...
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How's that again?
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Where I'm pointing...
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by birrddog; 9th Aug 2009 at 22:13. Reason: grammar police
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?
Also, the fixed wing was a Piper low wing, not a Cessna as the quote mentioned...
Last edited by MikeNYC; 9th Aug 2009 at 21:24. Reason: add fixed wing type correction
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Where I'm pointing...
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tfor2
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by birrddog; 9th Aug 2009 at 22:17. Reason: spelling and grammar police