Mid-Air Collision Over New York.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yes but that's a controller's job ! Of course he/she can make errors, but would you rather take off on a sightseeing heli trip and just hope there's nothing in the way, or have some kind of reassurance that someone, somewhere, is worrying about it ?
Anyone who has accumulated any hours knows that there are blind spots in an aircraft, and the more hours you fly the more you know that 'see and avoid' is a myth.
The more aircraft you bottle up in a small space the more the probability rises that there will be an accident. So it makes sense that in an intensely crowded area such as this, there needs to be control. Not the dead hand of control, just the sensible application of some rules and procedures to keep traffic apart.
Anyone who has accumulated any hours knows that there are blind spots in an aircraft, and the more hours you fly the more you know that 'see and avoid' is a myth.
The more aircraft you bottle up in a small space the more the probability rises that there will be an accident. So it makes sense that in an intensely crowded area such as this, there needs to be control. Not the dead hand of control, just the sensible application of some rules and procedures to keep traffic apart.
toptobottom sez:
If it indeed was an "accident waiting to happen," then we've waited quite a long time! Sightseeing helicopter tours have been going on from the W30th Street Heliport pretty much uninterrupted since the 1960's with no mid-airs. The New York TCA was instituted, in...oh, 1971 or so, and the exclusion was there from the beginning. So it's not fair to say this was an "accident waiting to happen."
I suppose if we wait long enough, every accident possible will occur.
Before beginning my career as a pilot, I managed the W30th Street Heliport briefly in the mid-70's while a small operator ran tours from there. During that time I saw planes big and small transiting the corridor. The biggest was a lumbering 707...God knows who's it was (an amazing sight!). And Philip-Morris's G-II came zooming down once. This was long before we had the CTAF noted on the chart.
Maybe because more controls are not needed? It's not a gauntlet. It's no worse than the beehive of fish-spotters that congregate in certain places along the Louisiana coast. It's no worse than the traffic in and around the Destin, Florida area on a busy weekend.
Keep your eyes open and outside the cockpit, guys. There are too many well-meaning people out there (pilots included, strangely) who would love to see more and more regulations heaped upon us.
...As if more rules regulations can prevent mid-airs.
From reading the very informative contributions in this thread from those member who are familiar however, it seems clear to me that this was an accident waiting to happen and without some improvement in safety regulations, there is little doubt that a similar accident will happen again, sooner or later...
I suppose if we wait long enough, every accident possible will occur.
Before beginning my career as a pilot, I managed the W30th Street Heliport briefly in the mid-70's while a small operator ran tours from there. During that time I saw planes big and small transiting the corridor. The biggest was a lumbering 707...God knows who's it was (an amazing sight!). And Philip-Morris's G-II came zooming down once. This was long before we had the CTAF noted on the chart.
Whatever, I don’t understand why my fellow aviators would rather continue to run the gauntlet than have extra controls introduced, even though these controls could protect them from a similar situation.
Keep your eyes open and outside the cockpit, guys. There are too many well-meaning people out there (pilots included, strangely) who would love to see more and more regulations heaped upon us.
...As if more rules regulations can prevent mid-airs.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FH1100 Pilot
Good post.
I wonder if toptobottom knew when making his post that an average of well over 200 aircraft operate at or below 1100 feet within a 3 mile radius of the accident site every day without incident or accident.
Perhaps he assumes that the "8 accidents in the Hudson River area in the last 14 years" were mid-airs?
As far as I can recall, despite the high volume of low level traffic every day, the last mid-air over NYC was between a Cessna seaplane approaching to land on the East River and a police helicopter near the Brooklyn waterfront. That was 26 years ago in 1983.
FL
YouTube - Moment Of Impact Hudson River Mid Air Footage from NBC news
Good post.
I wonder if toptobottom knew when making his post that an average of well over 200 aircraft operate at or below 1100 feet within a 3 mile radius of the accident site every day without incident or accident.
Perhaps he assumes that the "8 accidents in the Hudson River area in the last 14 years" were mid-airs?
As far as I can recall, despite the high volume of low level traffic every day, the last mid-air over NYC was between a Cessna seaplane approaching to land on the East River and a police helicopter near the Brooklyn waterfront. That was 26 years ago in 1983.
FL
YouTube - Moment Of Impact Hudson River Mid Air Footage from NBC news
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 have to agree with FH1100 Pilot above.
I also particularly like this excerpt from the NTSB advisory;
How about you hold off until the NTSB and FAA determine what the best way to move forward is. Especially if you have no experience with the operations conducted in the exclusion.
I also particularly like this excerpt from the NTSB advisory;
The role that air traffic control might have played in this
accident will be determined by the NTSB as the investigation
progresses. Any opinions rendered at this time are
speculative and premature.
accident will be determined by the NTSB as the investigation
progresses. Any opinions rendered at this time are
speculative and premature.
I am with the rest in agreeing that FH1100 made an excellent post.
I would add that those who keep advocating that this is dangerous airspace should just stay away. As with everything one does, there is a comfort level. A private pilot may look at fire fighting helicopters working and say they need more control.....I have worked in a daisy chain of 13 helicopters dipping from the same pond at the same time...not a problem, because it is what we do.
I will go out on a limb here and suggest that just as a dipsite pond is no place for a private pilot, the Hudson river corridor is also no place for the "average" private pilot. If you feel it needs more regulation---feel free to stay out.
I would add that those who keep advocating that this is dangerous airspace should just stay away. As with everything one does, there is a comfort level. A private pilot may look at fire fighting helicopters working and say they need more control.....I have worked in a daisy chain of 13 helicopters dipping from the same pond at the same time...not a problem, because it is what we do.
I will go out on a limb here and suggest that just as a dipsite pond is no place for a private pilot, the Hudson river corridor is also no place for the "average" private pilot. If you feel it needs more regulation---feel free to stay out.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 84
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't see and not seen
For reasons that, at present, we can only speculate about, neither pilot appears to have seen the other aircraft in time to take effective avoiding action.
We were told in an early post that
For opposite reasons, many species of fish have evolved colouring that is dark on top and loght below. Should aircraft, in particular those that frequently climb and descend in congested airspace, be required to adopt a complementary colour scheme, with light colour on top and dark below? Or even better, large patches of the type of the flourescent colours used on high-visibilty jackets.
I understand that some WW2 fighters had mirrors to give a view into what would otherwise have been blind spots. Why not fit them to modern light and medium aircraft, particularly helicopters, with their ability to move in directions where the pilot cannot easily see?
The mirror is a simple and generally reliable piece of technology, but there are better and relatively cheap alternatives. Modern domestic video cameras are small, light and relatively inexpensive; likewise small colour displays. A trip to the local consumer electronics shop should produce all the bits for a simple installation for five or six hundred pounds, though I suppose a fully certified installation could cost ten times as much - still relatively cheap.
We were told in an early post that
The Netherlands airforce painted their Pilatus PC-7 basic trainers black a couple of years ago, because research had shown that black aircraft are better visible against a daylight sky than other colours.
I understand that some WW2 fighters had mirrors to give a view into what would otherwise have been blind spots. Why not fit them to modern light and medium aircraft, particularly helicopters, with their ability to move in directions where the pilot cannot easily see?
The mirror is a simple and generally reliable piece of technology, but there are better and relatively cheap alternatives. Modern domestic video cameras are small, light and relatively inexpensive; likewise small colour displays. A trip to the local consumer electronics shop should produce all the bits for a simple installation for five or six hundred pounds, though I suppose a fully certified installation could cost ten times as much - still relatively cheap.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best Color for planes
If you have seen the interwar P26 or the variety of training planes of this era, that's the color for planes.
blue body, yellow wings, red and white tails...big rondels on the wing.
I just watched the new video of the actual collision. ouch.
blue body, yellow wings, red and white tails...big rondels on the wing.
I just watched the new video of the actual collision. ouch.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yellow Brick Road
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The more I read about this accident, the clearer the picture emerges. IMHO, both teams of controllers from Teterboro and Newark may have inadvertently contributed to the accident - they had grown complacent to the multiple collision alerts which have become background noise in that busy corridor. I believe the FAA has a lot to answer for too, due to the lack of separation minima between FW and RW aircraft over the Hudson.
In this incident, nobody wants to be a scapegoat, but the reality is that the cheese holes have been lining up one by one over the years.
I feel very sorry for the pilots (and their pax) who paid the highest price in order to progress this learning exercise. Judging from the video, neither saw each other and probably neither could have seen each other in the circumstances.
Just my humble 2 cents worth.
In this incident, nobody wants to be a scapegoat, but the reality is that the cheese holes have been lining up one by one over the years.
I feel very sorry for the pilots (and their pax) who paid the highest price in order to progress this learning exercise. Judging from the video, neither saw each other and probably neither could have seen each other in the circumstances.
Just my humble 2 cents worth.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Where I'm pointing...
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone with fixed wing experience please give some insight into airspace scans?
In helicopters we generally have the luxury of pretty good visibility from the cockpit in front, below, above and ~180deg left and right.
Fixed wings have other constraints, like engines, props, no glass in the floor, wings in the way, etc.
Are there 'standard' techniques to improve visibility in the scan like changing pitch, banking, etc. that one might employ (as standard procedure) before entering busy uncontrolled airspace?
In helicopters we generally have the luxury of pretty good visibility from the cockpit in front, below, above and ~180deg left and right.
Fixed wings have other constraints, like engines, props, no glass in the floor, wings in the way, etc.
Are there 'standard' techniques to improve visibility in the scan like changing pitch, banking, etc. that one might employ (as standard procedure) before entering busy uncontrolled airspace?
FH1100 – you explain that during your time as a tour pilot in NYC you had plenty of close-calls. You also say “...As if more rules regulations can prevent mid-airs.” Extraordinary.
Let’s wait for the NTSB’s verdict, but I can tell you now, whatever the conclusion, its recommendation certainly won’t be ‘Yeah – fluke. As you were guys – don’t forget your blind spots’. Neither will it be 'All aircraft must be painted fleurescent yellow and no PIC shall look down at a GPS when flying in busy airspace'
.
PS ever heard of the UK's quadrantal rule? That'll never work.
Let’s wait for the NTSB’s verdict, but I can tell you now, whatever the conclusion, its recommendation certainly won’t be ‘Yeah – fluke. As you were guys – don’t forget your blind spots’. Neither will it be 'All aircraft must be painted fleurescent yellow and no PIC shall look down at a GPS when flying in busy airspace'
.PS ever heard of the UK's quadrantal rule? That'll never work.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, here I go again, shoot me down if you must for my ignorance.
I started flying at Wycombe Park, UK. 3 types of aircraft mix in that airspace. Fixed wing, helicopters, gliders. All intensively flown.
And over the top (used to be 2,000' and above until the authorities granted a change) the jet traffic into Heathrow, and the politicians into Northolt, not to mention the military and the royals going in and out of Benson to the west and the tiger moths going in and out of White Waltham to the south.
Helicopters are different from all other birds, beware, they can rise vertically, go into reverse, etc. ( I have tried to reverse a Cessna away from a parking place but they stopped me in time.)
Blind spots exist particularly if high fixed wing conflicts with low fixed wing.
I do fly with a rear view mirror (to keep an eye on the glider on tow) but it doesn't help a lot. Too much vibration.
The real help in the Hudson corridor might be for the Feds to raise the ceiling for the VFR traffic? Like the regulators did over Wycombe? And then let the recommendations for keeping to the right up river, left downstream, , helis below l,500 and fixed wing between l,800 and 3,000, why not? After all, I can't imagine a cherokee taking off from a heliport.
I started flying at Wycombe Park, UK. 3 types of aircraft mix in that airspace. Fixed wing, helicopters, gliders. All intensively flown.
And over the top (used to be 2,000' and above until the authorities granted a change) the jet traffic into Heathrow, and the politicians into Northolt, not to mention the military and the royals going in and out of Benson to the west and the tiger moths going in and out of White Waltham to the south.
Helicopters are different from all other birds, beware, they can rise vertically, go into reverse, etc. ( I have tried to reverse a Cessna away from a parking place but they stopped me in time.)
Blind spots exist particularly if high fixed wing conflicts with low fixed wing.
I do fly with a rear view mirror (to keep an eye on the glider on tow) but it doesn't help a lot. Too much vibration.
The real help in the Hudson corridor might be for the Feds to raise the ceiling for the VFR traffic? Like the regulators did over Wycombe? And then let the recommendations for keeping to the right up river, left downstream, , helis below l,500 and fixed wing between l,800 and 3,000, why not? After all, I can't imagine a cherokee taking off from a heliport.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have dealt with JAA regs in the past. And in my point of view they tell you what you can do. Where as the FAA regs tell you what you can not do. While it appears to be a small difference, it is a wide gap. My issue is the over regulation and over control that is in place in Europe. Much of which has little or no effect on safety. The FAA is not prefect, but neither is the JAA. But in my view the FAA has a better mix in the regulations.
Discussing this accident with other pilots, both FW and RW, that fly into the exclusion areas on a regular basis a few points that we all agree on.
1. Know the airspace. Know where the exclusion areas are and the routes.
2. Communicate type, position, altutude and direction on the common freqs.
clearly, precisely, in a timely manner and then shut up and listen. Too
many pilots want to tell their life stories on the freq. and step on
important information.
3. Use ALL available exterior lights. Pulse lights are a big help.
4. Keep your head on a swivel. Keep looking in all possible directions.
5. Be the pilot. You are not a tour guide. Let the passengers do the looking.
Next we need to be careful about running with the herd. It is presently being led by politicians that have personal and political agendas. Remember the last mid air in the area was 1983. Now compare it to the crime statistics for the first three months of 2009.
# Homicides: Down 23.3% this year through March 29 compared with same period last year; from 116 killings to 89.
# Rapes: Down 23.1% through same period; from 360 reported rapes to 277.
# Robberies: Down 14.6% through same period; from 4,837 to 4,131.
# Burglaries: Down 14.6 through same period; from 4,614 to 3,942.
# Grand larceny auto: Down 12.1% through same period; from 2,767 to2,431.
# Crime in housing projects: Felony crimes down over 21% through same period. There were 78 homicides last year, down 17% from 94 in 2001.
# Transit crimes: Felonies down more than 5% through same period. Even as ridership grew, felony crimes per day shrank to six last year, compared to 10 in 2001. Last year, the daily felony crime rate was one per 1 million riders, compared with two per day in 2001.
You think there might be some other reason they are screaming so load about the mid air?
From a previous poster, it appears that the pilot was assigned an altitude and since he was planning on staying in controlled airspace, he may not have been aware that he was in uncontrolled airspace. Talk about the holes in all the slices of cheese lining up.
Discussing this accident with other pilots, both FW and RW, that fly into the exclusion areas on a regular basis a few points that we all agree on.
1. Know the airspace. Know where the exclusion areas are and the routes.
2. Communicate type, position, altutude and direction on the common freqs.
clearly, precisely, in a timely manner and then shut up and listen. Too
many pilots want to tell their life stories on the freq. and step on
important information.
3. Use ALL available exterior lights. Pulse lights are a big help.
4. Keep your head on a swivel. Keep looking in all possible directions.
5. Be the pilot. You are not a tour guide. Let the passengers do the looking.
Next we need to be careful about running with the herd. It is presently being led by politicians that have personal and political agendas. Remember the last mid air in the area was 1983. Now compare it to the crime statistics for the first three months of 2009.
# Homicides: Down 23.3% this year through March 29 compared with same period last year; from 116 killings to 89.
# Rapes: Down 23.1% through same period; from 360 reported rapes to 277.
# Robberies: Down 14.6% through same period; from 4,837 to 4,131.
# Burglaries: Down 14.6 through same period; from 4,614 to 3,942.
# Grand larceny auto: Down 12.1% through same period; from 2,767 to2,431.
# Crime in housing projects: Felony crimes down over 21% through same period. There were 78 homicides last year, down 17% from 94 in 2001.
# Transit crimes: Felonies down more than 5% through same period. Even as ridership grew, felony crimes per day shrank to six last year, compared to 10 in 2001. Last year, the daily felony crime rate was one per 1 million riders, compared with two per day in 2001.
You think there might be some other reason they are screaming so load about the mid air?
From a previous poster, it appears that the pilot was assigned an altitude and since he was planning on staying in controlled airspace, he may not have been aware that he was in uncontrolled airspace. Talk about the holes in all the slices of cheese lining up.
Being overtaken on climb
The dirty secret is that while on climb you can be smacked by faster traffic coming up from behind -- and at certain angles the guy coming up from behind will not see the climbing traffic.
Would climbing in the middle of the Hudson keep you clear of transiting traffic over the banks?
Remember that transiting traffic is not cognizant of the heliport locations or their landing / takeoff patterns. Yes, one could put them on the map but do you prefer transiting pilots with their eyes outside or on the map?
Would climbing in the middle of the Hudson keep you clear of transiting traffic over the banks?
Remember that transiting traffic is not cognizant of the heliport locations or their landing / takeoff patterns. Yes, one could put them on the map but do you prefer transiting pilots with their eyes outside or on the map?
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
Remember that transiting traffic is not cognizant of the heliport locations or their landing / takeoff patterns. Yes, one could put them on the map but do you prefer transiting pilots with their eyes outside or on the map?
Take the Flying W(N14) area of New Jersey, for example. 3 uncontrolled airports within a 3 mile radius. I wouldn't dream of transiting that area at pattern altitude without a good mental picture of where the local traffic would be operating.
From the latest preliminary report, we can read
and
I understand this to be, that as soon as the plane had cleared the other helicopter, it should be told to continue climb to requested altitude. However, no such instruction from TEB was given, only
So a likely scenario would be;
The pilot have continued at 1100', changed the frequency to Newark, but not immediately contacted them. Therefore, he would not have heard the calls from TEB or the helicopters position report on the CTAF, and when Newark seemingly did not try to call the plane(no callsign at hand?!), but instead called TEB to ask them to resolve the conflict, the faith was set.
As for the helicopter-pilot, he would most likely be on CTAF only, and not got a reply on his pos-report indicating no traffic in the vicinity concerning his route.
puntosaurus,
Yeah, right!!
Controllers also stuff up from time to time as well, some with a slightly worse outcome than others though.
I have had controllers line me up head to head with a MD87 circling to land, which is not so nice regardless of machine you're in.
Same tower managed to do the same thing with a DC9 and a 747, resulting in a TCAS solution.
Being told by ATC to alter course due to oncoming traffic even a vertical seperation of no less than 5000 feet!!!
Being told to decend below 1500 feet outside a controllzone and report traffic in sight(Airbus..somehting) due to approaching traffic to an airport 16NM away. I could barely see the airplane!!
List is much longer....
An old rule I heard in when in pilot-training.
1.ATC f..k up: ATC lives, pilot dies
2.Mechanic f..k up: Mechanic lives, pilot dies
3.Pilot f..k up, pilot dies, ATC and Mechanic lives, unless pilot give Mechanic a lift and crashes with the tower....
The following should never have been possible, and I'm sure that if you had tried to make this happen it wouldn't have. Talking about the holes in the swiss cheese lining up.....
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ny-merged.html
FH1100 and Gordy
rick1128,
As for the JAR's, can you just immagine how the JAR's would look if they would have stated the things you're NOT allowed to do.
The FAA is not trying to be the "back seat-nanny" as the European CAA trying to be. Accidents happen in Europe too despite lots of more restrictions and less trafficdensity.
The airplane pilot
requested an en route altitude of 3500 feet.
requested an en route altitude of 3500 feet.
The tower controller advised the airplane and the pilot of
another helicopter operating in the area of each other and
instructed the pilot of the airplane to remain at or below
1,100 feet.
another helicopter operating in the area of each other and
instructed the pilot of the airplane to remain at or below
1,100 feet.
At 1152:20 the Teterboro controller instructed
the pilot to contact Newark on a frequency of 127.85
the pilot to contact Newark on a frequency of 127.85
The pilot have continued at 1100', changed the frequency to Newark, but not immediately contacted them. Therefore, he would not have heard the calls from TEB or the helicopters position report on the CTAF, and when Newark seemingly did not try to call the plane(no callsign at hand?!), but instead called TEB to ask them to resolve the conflict, the faith was set.
As for the helicopter-pilot, he would most likely be on CTAF only, and not got a reply on his pos-report indicating no traffic in the vicinity concerning his route.
puntosaurus,
'see and avoid' is a myth.
Controllers also stuff up from time to time as well, some with a slightly worse outcome than others though.
I have had controllers line me up head to head with a MD87 circling to land, which is not so nice regardless of machine you're in.
Same tower managed to do the same thing with a DC9 and a 747, resulting in a TCAS solution.
Being told by ATC to alter course due to oncoming traffic even a vertical seperation of no less than 5000 feet!!!
Being told to decend below 1500 feet outside a controllzone and report traffic in sight(Airbus..somehting) due to approaching traffic to an airport 16NM away. I could barely see the airplane!!
List is much longer.... An old rule I heard in when in pilot-training.
1.ATC f..k up: ATC lives, pilot dies
2.Mechanic f..k up: Mechanic lives, pilot dies
3.Pilot f..k up, pilot dies, ATC and Mechanic lives, unless pilot give Mechanic a lift and crashes with the tower....
The following should never have been possible, and I'm sure that if you had tried to make this happen it wouldn't have. Talking about the holes in the swiss cheese lining up.....
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ny-merged.html
FH1100 and Gordy
rick1128,
As for the JAR's, can you just immagine how the JAR's would look if they would have stated the things you're NOT allowed to do.
The FAA is not trying to be the "back seat-nanny" as the European CAA trying to be. Accidents happen in Europe too despite lots of more restrictions and less trafficdensity.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real help in the Hudson corridor might be for the Feds to raise the ceiling for the VFR traffic? Like the regulators did over Wycombe? And then let the recommendations for keeping to the right up river, left downstream, , helis below l,500 and fixed wing between l,800 and 3,000, why not?
I understand this to be, that as soon as the plane had cleared the other helicopter, it should be told to continue climb to requested altitude.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sadly
the first and only duty of ATC is the seperation of IFR traffic from IFR traffic.
everything else is secondary, workload permitting sort of thing.
I am unclear...was the floor of the TCA/B airspace 1100 feet? if so, why was the copter at 1100 feet and not 1099 feet or below?
the first and only duty of ATC is the seperation of IFR traffic from IFR traffic.
everything else is secondary, workload permitting sort of thing.
I am unclear...was the floor of the TCA/B airspace 1100 feet? if so, why was the copter at 1100 feet and not 1099 feet or below?
Papertiger,
I understand that's the case, IF the plane's intentions was to stay clear of the Newark airspace, and following the corridor. However, the pilot had requested 3500' enroute, meaning he would have been IN the Newark class B enroute, and maintaining radiocontact with Newark.
But due to the other helicopter-traffic(not the Liberty-machine), the plane was told to stay at 1100', not??
If the intentions for the plane was to stay clear of Newark and follow the corridor, then WHY was he told to contact Newark then?? Does not make any sence. Operating around the San Fransisco Bay as one example, I have dodged SFO class B and OAK Class C in/out and around the other airports without having to talk to either of the above as long as I stay clear of the mentioned airspace(that's the whole point of staying clear isn't it?!) Can you tell me why in the case of the Hudson River corridor, things would be diffrent??
I understand that's the case, IF the plane's intentions was to stay clear of the Newark airspace, and following the corridor. However, the pilot had requested 3500' enroute, meaning he would have been IN the Newark class B enroute, and maintaining radiocontact with Newark.
But due to the other helicopter-traffic(not the Liberty-machine), the plane was told to stay at 1100', not??
If the intentions for the plane was to stay clear of Newark and follow the corridor, then WHY was he told to contact Newark then?? Does not make any sence. Operating around the San Fransisco Bay as one example, I have dodged SFO class B and OAK Class C in/out and around the other airports without having to talk to either of the above as long as I stay clear of the mentioned airspace(that's the whole point of staying clear isn't it?!) Can you tell me why in the case of the Hudson River corridor, things would be diffrent??
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 understand that's the case, IF the plane's intentions was to stay clear of the Newark airspace, and following the corridor. However, the pilot had requested 3500' enroute, meaning he would have been IN the Newark class B enroute, and maintaining radiocontact with Newark.
But due to the other helicopter-traffic(not the Liberty-machine), the plane was told to stay at 1100', not??
If the intentions for the plane was to stay clear of Newark and follow the corridor, then WHY was he told to contact Newark then?? Does not make any sence.
But due to the other helicopter-traffic(not the Liberty-machine), the plane was told to stay at 1100', not??
If the intentions for the plane was to stay clear of Newark and follow the corridor, then WHY was he told to contact Newark then?? Does not make any sence.
By keeping the plane below 1100, he would have been keeping him clear of Bravo until the plane got the specific clearance from Newark tower to enter the Bravo. Maybe there wasn't enough time for TEB to hand off to EWR and for them to give the Clearance to Bravo before the plane busted Bravo airspace. By keeping him under the Bravo it possibly kept the regs from being violated.
Then there's also the possibility that 3500' in that area could have put that plane in the separation zone needed for aircraft on final for runway 22 at Newark.
But this is just pure speculation on my behalf(well maybe a little educated speculation).
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the filing to 3500 was only a part of the flight plan. Once through the corridor EWR would be the facility to issue an enroute climb clearance, so he (PA32) was told to contact them before and after transit.