Mid-Air Collision Over New York.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The laughing stock of the rest of the world!
Age: 73
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The helicopter was not painted black... the accident helicopter, N401LH, was silver (pics).
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...
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...
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Asia
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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: Apr 2008
Location: US Virgin & British Virgin,Islands
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hudson accident
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.
Rest In Peace.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another case, with a lesson
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA (PA)
Age: 47
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
NYC vs London/Paris
( 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
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
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Really?
although newbies are usually welcome and we are eager to help, this is still a professional pilots rumor network.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'.)
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'.)
Mary,
NO, it is NOT the case.
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.....
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 11th Aug 2009 at 01:01. Reason: Edit unnecessary reply
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!!
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!!!
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
...so I would favor some sensible restrictions
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...
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA (PA)
Age: 47
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA (PA)
Age: 47
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I thought I mention this safety record.
toptobottom
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.
It was clear to me that the US needs far tighter control over who can fly what and when;
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.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS
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!!!!
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!!!!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: uk
Age: 59
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
I.e. night only if you have a night rating, R44 only if you have that type rating etc?
Last edited by Twiddle; 10th Aug 2009 at 20:02. Reason: Can't type for toffee and added clarification of license nationality
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 67
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hudson River Corridor is safe but challenging
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.
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.