I agree with Spaceage. Clear. But what if this was his clearing turn to the right which obscured the vision to the left?

This was an accident... a series of uniquely combined variables which created an unfortunate and fatal outcome. But it will draw those who want and believe man can create a perfect world if he just writes enough laws.

I flew this route in April with 3 pax in a 172. If my memory is up to anything, the procedure is sticking to the west side of the Hudson southbound and east side northbound (like cars on US roads). The NY class B starts at 1,100ft over the river and it was recommended to me to stick above 500ft to be clear of most of the helicopters.

I briefed my pax to do all the sight seeing and picture taking, whilst I did the flying and maintained a lookout. I did the tourist bit via the photos back at home.

The biggest issue I had at the time I flew it was the radio; you are supposed to self announce a brief location and altitude passing landmarks on the map on the common frequency (e.g. Cherokee, Intrepid, southbound at 700 feet). On the day that I flew the tourist chopper pilots were also using the frequency for all sorts of innane chatter (e.g. what's the score at the game etc etc) and requesting fuel from base. It made deciphering where traffic was almost impossible due to the constant drawl.

Gareth.

Having a closer look at that tragic pic, is it only everything upstairs of the mast sheared off below the MRH on AS350, or has the whole transmission been ripped off the roof? Perhaps part of a main rotor blade has separated in flight after striking the right wing of piper aircraft, thus causing a massive imbalance and ripping the main transmission and everything attached to it off the AS350's roof. What happened to the piper is clear, the whole right wing has separated from the aircraft.

Anyway, again, not guessing, just wondering.

Report says Cherokee Six, in which case you would be scratching your head if it wasn't extended - has fixed gear.

Fixed wing vs. helicopters
 

Back in the 70s, I too owned a PA-32 (fixed gear), kept it at Teterboro, and lived in Manhattan. Over several years, it was my pleasure to take friends and visiting relatives VFR out over that corridor to view the majesty of the island. They took the pictures. The rules were strict. On takeoff, report intentions to TEB tower, straight to the GW Bridge, turn South, stay to the right, maintain altitude (1,000 or 800 as I remember), see the passenger ships lined up below on the left, down to and around the Statue of Liberty, wave to the diners at Windows on the World in the South Twin Tower (same altitude) on the way back to the Bridge, and land again at Teterboro. This was and is a famous traditional trip, and a privilege to use safely, always keeping a good lookout of course.

To my mind, helicopters are the culprits. I think they should be treated like power boats treat sail boats. Or cars treat pedestrians. The fixed wing on this corridor should have the right of way, being unable to easily avoid surprise appearances from ... above? Underneath? Behind? Sideways?

C'mon, think about it. DON'T advocate further restrictions on VFR fixed wing flights on this particular trip.

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.

Fixed wing pilots need to be especially careful when you know you're working in the same airspace as helicopters.

They are small, slow,can fly crazy angles in the sky and are not bound by the laws of physics to use normal runways, taxiways and approach paths.

I fly from a small airport where helicopter movements make up the majority of movements from this airfield. So I am always wide awake when I'm sharing air with fling wings.

I don't believe more rules can solve this problem for good. I do believe constant vigilance and preparedness can help to avoid these hazards.

And then there's fate, if she wants you... thats it.

I've also flown through the VFR corridor over KLAX in a light single. It can be scary, BUT I also requested, and obtained, VFR flight following during that flight. It's not always available, due to controller work load, but it IS something you should at least request. During my flight, I had a king air pass me on the left, and was advised of this traffic both by ATC and the king air - the king air reported "traffic in sight" and passed VFR. It CAN be done and the system DOES work....as long as all parties do their job! :ok:

Fixed-wing pilots certainly need to be careful, but since fixed-wing has less maneuverability than helicopters, the helicopters carry a greater burden of staying out of the way of other aircraft. If a helicopter moves abruptly into the flight path of a fixed-wing, it may be hard for the fixed-wing to avoid it (although I'm not saying that that happened here). In this case, the helicopter was operating commercial and the private plane was not, so that imposes an additional burden on the helicopter, independently of the aircraft type.

There are always cries to "do something!" from people who react emotionally rather than rationally to current events. Pilots are not immune to this, even when they should know better, as several posts here demonstrate.

I suggest that nothing ever be changed in regulations for at least one year after any accident. This allows most people to overcome their emotions a bit and think with a somewhat clearer head, and it also allows the news media to move on to other stories. By waiting at least a year to "do something," people may realize that nothing really needs to be done.

It's good that Bloomberg is a pilot, but he is surrounded by non-pilots who believe that flying a private plane is an elitist, dangerous sport that should be banned. Commercial air travel is not banned when an airliner crashes because average people want access to air travel and would feel personally constrained if it disappeared, but only one person in 500 is a private pilot, so most people don't care about private, general aviation and wouldn't miss it if it were gone, so they are happy to ban it.

Be careful what you wish for.

Kiwi Pilot flying the AStar
 

Part of a story from the New Zealand Herald.

Kiwi pilot in New York air collision - National - NZ Herald News

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?

Engine Failure?
 

It is being reported by the Daily Mail on-line that the PA-32 had engine failure.

"The plane, a Piper PA-32, took off from Teterboro airport and reported engine failure before hitting the helicopter."

'Nine dead' after helicopter and plane collide over Hudson River | Mail Online

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.

Regards,
Frits

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.

RIP Jeremy Clarke + all involved
 

I Flew with Jeremy many times when he was working for LA Helicopters in Long Beach.
He was a consumate professional and an all round Very nice guy.
We had some good times on the ground and in the air.
He will be missed by many.

Life can be short RIP all involved

Chester:sad::sad:

Procedures for all aircraft flying over the Hudson and East Rivers.

http://skyvector.com/


Flight Planning and Aeronautical Charts at SkyVector.com

One less chance for a mid air as long as you don't wonder into the Hudson VFR corridor:ok:.

Condolences to the freinds and families what a tragedy and on the Hudson of all places.

Mid-air collision
 

The photo is frightening:uhoh:

But not necessarily against built-up areas....

exceedingly so, a terrible thing for those poor souls, and now their rellies behind, I am sorry.

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.

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.

The gear is held in the 'up' position hydraulically by a hydraulic power pack . With the right wing seperated and the hydraulic lines now open , the remaining legs are free to come out of their bays and extend due to gravity/gyroscopic forces .

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.

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! :ugh:

In some parts of the corridor (near EWR) the ceiling is 500', but higher where this happened.

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

From Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com :

http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/1987/hudson1.jpg

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/3673/hudson2.jpg

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

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. I used to fly it all the time, and the only "regulations" were that you stay under 1,200 feet and above 500 (or 1,000 if you're close to the shore) and within the shoreline boundaries. There's an informal rule that everybody "keep right"--southbound traffic on the Jersey side, northbound on the Manhattan side.

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.

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.

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

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......

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.

I appreciate what you are saying stepwilk, and a warm howdy to you to, is that the traffic in the corridor is not actively "controlled".

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

How's that again?
 

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.

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.

The helicopter was not painted black... the accident helicopter, N401LH, was silver (pics).

Also, the fixed wing was a Piper low wing, not a Cessna as the quote mentioned...

I think you failed to read between the lines in the post.

If you believe what the NTSB recently stated in the latest news conference, what I summarized in my post in Rotorheads and made an observation:
From the above we have the facts (from the NTSB) that the Piper should not have been in the corridor - so you can't blame helicopters operating correctly and legally for the incident.

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.