Looking at the previously posted pics it looked pretty black to me, may have been resprayed.

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... :suspect:

I guess you didn't get the sarcasm. Since the fixed wing planes CAN'T land at the heliports, they shouldn't be below 1000 ft. I always wonder where the planes I see at 500 ft are going to land when they lose an engine.

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.

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!!! Yeah, this is practised everyday.......:hmm:

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.

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

Oh Really?
 

This is the sort of elitist b/s this site doesn't need. The word "professional" can mean you are paid to do what you do. It can also mean that a level of competency is achieved by training and a license. I'd say this site is for all of us who have training and a license, and may or may not be flying for a living. If we don't want it read by others, it should be easy to keep the media and public out. But notice everybody gets to read it.

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.:=

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'.)

Mary,

NO, it is NOT the case.

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!!!

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.

OK, so not NYC, but on a recent business trip to Las Vegas I hired an R44 and flew over the Hoover dam, down the Colorado and then , after dark, did three orbits of the Stratosphere hotel before flying down 'The Strip' and back to the airfield. I must have counted 20 other machines do the same thing in the immediate vicinity and throughout the entire flight I received nothing more than an acknowledgment when i first announced myself to the ATC.

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...

I didn't say that. But obviously your are speculating on unverified reports - show me the report which states he overtook that Piper and then lets verify that before we jump to conclusions.
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.

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.

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.

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!!!!

Is that the case? I'd have thought that you were still under the restrictions of your UK license unless you get an FAA piggyback? (Not sure why but I thought you had a UK license, now I'm not so sure?)

I.e. night only if you have a night rating, R44 only if you have that type rating etc?

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.

See back of chart for helicopter route inset
 

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...li-chart2z.jpg


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...li-chart3z.jpg


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...li-chart3a.jpg


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...li-chart3b.jpg


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...li-chart3c.jpg

Gordy

I am from the UK - obviously. For the record, I've never complained about the CAA (apart from its bureaucracy and antiquated processes) and I'm not suggesting for a second that CAA regulations are 'imposed' on US pilots; however, I am suggesting that controls are not tight enough - equally obviously.

As a SFH'er I flew with a safety pilot in LV as a I described - unbelievably - and I was aware that the 20 helicopters were on a set path, however the ATC neither told me that, nor provided any information that might have prevented me colliding with any of those 20 helicopters. It was quite clearly up to each individual to avoid another.

Your Hawaii anecdote is interesting, but I too have flown in Hawaii and the experience was totally different to that of Las Vegas; a handful of machines over a wide area, all of which was sparsely populated and rural. In LV, flying a single engined machine over an intensely populated area at night and with a lot of other traffic is quite different and needs regulating, as it seems, does NYC.

TTB

ttb, please tell me, as I am a mere mortal, how more regulation would prevent an aircraft operating in controlled class D airspace, cleared for departure routing and frequency change to controlled class B airspace from having an emergency causing it to bust into airspace it was not cleared for in the same small piece of sky another aviator was unlucky enough to be operating in at the same time?

One would think "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate" would have been all the regulation required, and arguably the most effective in this situation.

The US has a pretty mature approach to Self Regulation, that works pretty effectively across various types of legislation... Every so know and then people/organizations need to be reminded of their self regulation obligations yes, it does not mean the right to self regulate, when it works for 99.9% of the time is at fault.

Toptobottom,

Next time you go SFH, request flight-following... and you'll get relevant info on those 20 other helicopters or so out there.
If you only have a Foreign License Validation based on your UK license, then you're only allowed to fly within the limitations on your UK license. If you obtain a FAA Private Pilot license, then the limitations will be diffrent.

All the regs in the world would not prevent accident from happening from time to time, unless a total BAN of flying. It's a way to hasty reaction, to call for stricter regulations, just cause an accident happen. We still don't know WHY this happened, and before we know, lets wait until we know more before discussing the regs.

This type of area is not unique. Sydney Harbour and Parramatta river (Aus) is basically the same. Although no fixed wing allowed west of the bridge as the river is pretty narrow and defines the horizontal limits. It passes under the ILS for Sydney and the sky goes black when you pass under a 747. Worst days are when the weekend warriors are about.

Separation was tried and it doesn't work either. Self separation when things are busy is a struggle as well. One guy used to manage to hog the airtime and successfully separate himself from 10 other guys, but that was all. (RIP JB)

There was a method that worked pretty well in cattle mustering and was/is used effectively. Once the traffic is announced (i.e. you need to know it is there and indentify it) it is your problem if you are in the other guys blind spot! Think about that before you comment. It works. Granted it may not have any bearing on this circumstance.

Midairs between helicopter and fixed wing have happened before. Possibly not as rare an occurrence as some may think.

1993 Auckland mid-air collision

1992 Fox Glacier mid-air collision

Sounds like you need to work on the flare a bit.

toptoottom.

Birddog states it best in his last paragraph which I could not have said better:

As an observer with a "safety pilot" who was familiar with the area, you obviously have your opinion about the Vegas airspace. ATC is under no obligation to give you traffic information---the radio would never be quiet. Amazingly---one can drive safely on a freeway with thousands of cars and NO traffic information---why? Because everyone follows a set procedure or pattern. As for your Hawaii experience---I am guessing you were not on Kauai.

As for the night over densely populated area---I flew the San Francisco area for 8 years--at night, single engine----the rules in the US are completely different to what you are used to---that does not mean it cannot be accomplished safely.

Of course a lot of us over here in the UK are just plain jealous of the freedom you guys have over there in the US. Good luck to you may it last a long time. We all know a single engine helicopter is just as reliable at night as it is during the day. Try telling that to the campaign. Aparently they dictate that it is ok for a single engine plank to fly IFR but not a single engine helicopter.:ugh: work that one out. And as for being allowed to fly any piston heli with only a Robbo ticket, hell I don't see anything wrong with that.:ok: (if you can fly a Robbo you can fly anything, right?...) I wonder if you have to have anual check rides as well over there where the grass is greener? :)

toptobottom I couldn't disagree more.
IMHO, the FAA has generally got the degree of regulation about right. No system is perfect, but it's the best I know having looked closely at various jurisdictions over many years.

Perhaps the explanation by birddog will make it less amazing to you:Many British pilots complain about the volume of our rules and regs (I note you say you don't) but I've long believed that many Brits actually like rules and regs - despite what they say.
Perhaps it's a symptom of our 'nanny knows best' culture.


(My theory has been strengthened by reading discussions in various forums on PPRuNe over many years. When a British pilot asks if it's legal to do something, he's usually inundated with a variety of reasons why he can't because it would be illegal - many of which display extraordinary and tortuous ingenuity. In contrast, very few people use the same degree of effort or ingenuity into coming up with a way in which the objective could, perhaps with a minor variation, be achieved entirely legally.
I've found this negative attitude to be particularly true of PPLs.)


FL

it is to our credit that we are trying to make things better here on this forum.

as many of you know, a NY area auto crash killed almost as many people and I see nothing trying to change traffic laws.

this was an accident...fate? a wake up call to do even more of what we already know how to do? more clearing"

perhaps we should horizontally seperate aircraft by speed?

I would say to the copter people that joining the circuit by crossing the river should be a ''no no''...but joining on the manhattan side and flying north around the circuit.

oh well..it probably won't happen again for twenty years.

Anyway, back to it ...
Earlier on page 1 I mentioned about the undercarriage being down on the piper, then it was said that loss of hydraulics due to wing seperation may cause this, then it was speculated that viewers accounted the helicopter flying up into path of descending fixed wing (maybe due to reported engine troubles reported to tower?)

Having flown both aircraft types, visibilty is bad in piper whe trying to see anything below in slow airspeed, raised nose position, and head down in cockpit to resolve issue. Also visibilty is bad in A-star due to nose lowered immediately after take-off to build speed, and quick scan of sky may have just blended in white painted base of aircraft into white clouded skyline from lower altitude?

These and many other small factors may have contributed to it, and I really can't see that any blame should be layed right now by some previous comments that helicopter is at fault, or plane at fault. If the aircraft were in opposite positions, then visibilty would have been fine, but this was not the case.

The only thing to comment on at the moment would be making awareness to others on how to maintain clearance and safety margins in current corridor, and maybe suggest options of ADS-B or TCAS systems to be implemented. Its a shame what happened, makes me sad because how many times have you almost had a car collision due to sun glare, or just seen a car at last moment due to blending in current surroundings or view impaired, but avoided an accident?? Many would own up to yes, and say that was close, AND learnt from it. .... .... Unfortunately and sadly this one was too close and now we only hope that we can all make positive suggestions on this cruel accident so that it doesnt happen again, coz it could be one of your family in there one day.

1- No blaming either fixed wing or rotary wing in this case, until the case is cleared by the NTSB.
2- My suggestion would be to have 200' seperation in height wise of fixed wing and rotary wing, allowing lower heights for helicopters, as they are more maneuravible in some situations. Floats should also be mandatory, with water sensors to operate them as backup. i know float systems for the Eurocopter, and have personally fitted and packed them. Maybe survivors may have been if not stricken craft sunk to bottom?

I seem to have touched a few nerves here! Let me respond to a few things:

1) There are many CAA rules and regs that are simply obselete and IMHO the entire book needs reviewing - unfortunately, the wonderful EASA is doing just that and is suggesting some plainly ridiculous new legislation, particularly for PPL(H)s.

2) birddog - I appreciate you're only a mere mortal, but note I'm neither familiar with the precise circumstances of this particular incident nor the area and therefore I'm not qualified to criticise any procedures that should have been followed. I was simply posting my own experience of flying in the US, as compared with many of the other countries I've flown in. Your sarcasm is wasted I'm afraid.

3) I am certainly not suggesting that CAA rules and regs are 'imposed' on our American cousins, whom I agree enjoy an altogether better flying environment (not least the weather!). I wish I could fly there all the time.

4) Nubian - you make some good points; until the reasons for this incident become clear, we won't know if there will be any recommendations that could avoid a repetition. I don't recall my safety pilot asking for 'Flight following' - in fact I hardly heard him say anything - perhaps that's why my experience was so daunting?

5) Gordy: Try explaining that to thousands of mainland Europeans who drive to the UK and suddenly have to drive on the left-hand side of the road. The roads from the entry ports are crammed with Traffic Information signs saying 'drive on the left!' because we understand that a visitor won't necessarily be familiar with the set procedures and patterns of a foreign territory. You'd be 'amazed' at how much damage can be caused by somebody operating in an unfamiliar environment without proper instruction. I could easily have been that person in LV.

6) Flying Lawyer - I am still 'amazed' that in the US, armed only with an R22 FAA license and say, 50 daytime hours experience, I can jump into any ship, at night (of course the engine is as safe at night as in the day, but an inexperienced pilot isn't) and I am judged to be safe, despite the total lack of training. IMHO that's absurd, but in the US, it's also entirely legal. And as for your theory that many Brits like rules and regs - that's amazing! I don't know a single UK citizen who secretly wants to be a member of a 'nanny state' - the Government almost had a riot on its hands at just the mention of ID cards!

Sorry if all the Americans on here think I'm trying to take away their flying freedom - I am most certainly not. You guys are very lucky and I wouldn't wish the many onerous and obselete CAA regs on my worst enemy. However, IN MY EXPERIENCE, the controls in the US (at least around LV) are way behind the UK and it's MY VIEW that this is a situation that needs improvement.

TTB

There is a catch...
 

When you read an accident report you may come across the phrase, "operation beyond experience/ability level," or words to that effect.

Just look at the high-profile accident that killed JFK, Junior, his wife and his sister-in-law. He was flying at night, VFR, over open water in marginal VMC. All of this was legal but fatal because he was beyond his ability to do that. (He went along okay for a while but finally augered in in what looked like a typical accident due to disorientation, when he hit the water and sank, killing all aboard.) You could argue that layers and layers of rules, as in the UK, would have prevented that one crash and you might well be correct. In the States we rely instead on common sense to keep us from going too far in what we attempt to do with an aircraft.

Certainly there have been high-profile crashes of light helos in the UK that were put down to VFR in IMC so that I don't think more rules will necessarily do the job of keeping us safe.

Some excellent posts here for sure. May I say that the "see and avoid" principles of US airspace management, earned my utmost respect.

I have yet to see anywhere in OZ that traffic density comes close, yet all one hears is complaints when ever a midair occurs, usually beacause of failure of the mark one eyeball, or more particularly the vacant grey matter behind the mark one turnout.

In the los Angeles basin, of a mere few hundred square miles, wherein existed most of the several highest density traffic areas in the world it was amazing that only one midair occured every two or three years?

However, and the corrollary has been drawn to road traffic, whenever roads become congested they become widened or redesigned to create better flow etc.

The problem seems to be in this instance is that there is no way that the Hudson corridor can be widened due to possibly a rising crescendo of noise complaints. The oveflying RPT traffic will remain at their current levels but the traffic density of lighties has increased tremendously.

What has worked for decades may be so, but like the tank that eventually stops flowing water when the outlet finally becomes at the same level at the storage, these areas need to be examined by the local "Airspace Usage Committe" with a higher degree of responsibility to work out methods of alleviating more conflict.

They are the regulators who need to be questioned, not FAA, ATC or NTSB or anyone else to my mind, mind you those mentioned would all have a responsibility to bring the matter to the attention of the 'AUC' should they see conflict arising.

For clarification, Airspace Usage Committee, i believe is often referred to as Airspace Management Committee

FAA Ticket
 

The FAA Rotorcraft Licence allows you to fly rotorcraft under 12,500 lbs (excluding Robinsons for which there is I believe some type rating). In theory you can fly any machine IF you can convince the owner to give you the keys.

In practice, and my limited experience, it won't happen without some sort of checkride...or if turbine, 'initial turbine course' and then you will then need a minimum number of hours to solo in the aircraft for insurance purposes.

Also of note re: insurance, is you may be required to take out renters insurance or if insurance is included it may not include the hull! Bend it, it comes out of your pocket.

What the FAA license does (and one reason I opted for FAA) is remove the requirement to be tested on each type you fly every year - potentially very expensive on the CAA system if you are a professional pilot and hold multiple type ratings. On the US system you need to remain currenta nd satisfy the BFR requirement.

The FAA system has some flaws, but is light years better than the Campaign Against Aviation:}

I have never flown over the Hudson myself. However, since it is a river, it extremely easy to see its edges. With VFR corridors over land, pilots may be less certain of the edges and stray more easily into each others way.

In terms of flying in controlled airspace over the Hudson, ATC may be too busy at times to permit it, especially for sightseeing.

Is there more about the plane reporting engine trouble? Was it losing altitude at the time of the collision? It may have been impossible to see traffic below.

On the JFK crash, my uncle used to say, "there are old pilots and bold pilots but there are no old bold pilots."

Obviously, every crash involving injury or loss of life is tragic.

Question: If the fixed wing lost power over water such as the Hudson River, is it appropriate to lower the landing gears? I would think if a water ditch would be necessary, you would go without wheels down.

Anyone who knows the terrain around the George Washington Bridge would immediately conclude that a ground landing when an engine goes at 500 - 1000 feet is impossible.

Correct. You want to ditch with landing gear UP. If they are down, you run the risk of ripping them off, which increases the chance of sinking faster. Also gear down increases the chance of flipping and cartwheeling.

Also, if there are swells (waves) you want to land parallel to the waves (along the crest or trough) to avoid "hitting" a wave front.

A controlled ditching has a fairly high survival rate, and would be better than taking your chances of landing on a road in that area.

Toptobottom You may have a good future in American politics.

MORE rules. More CONTROL. Its in vogue now here in the states where obviously the 'little people' can't and don't exercise intelligent choice. (See healthcare debate and being 'un-American :E)

Phil77 accused me of lecturing, says I should read up on subjects I know nothing about.

I don't lecture. But I do search for info, and draw attention to it. You'll find references to the aerodynamic dangers of helicopters getting too close to fixed wing a/c in this AOPA report, as I did, and I doubt that many private pilots are aware of the hazard:

AOPA Online: Landmark Accidents: Down and Locked

NTSB won't report their findings for a while yet. Maybe a long while. We do know that both machines had a right to be in that corridor. Engine failure is highly unlikely. In the absence of black boxes, it will probably be speculative, and finally put down to joint lack of care (see and avoid).

In the meantime, we are all putting in our 2 cents worth. At the least, it may help avoid a future accident. :)