|
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. |
toptobottom sez:
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. |
FH1100 Pilot
Good post. :ok: 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 |
I have to agree with FH1100 Pilot above.
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. |
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. |
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 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. |
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. |
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. |
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? |
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. |
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 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. |
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? |
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
The airplane pilot 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. At 1152:20 the Teterboro controller instructed 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.:eek: 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!!:rolleyes: 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:ok: 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 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. |
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? |
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. 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). |
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.
|
I don't want to advertise an instrument or another, and considering tcas way too expensive and useful mainly for the big birds, I have an idea on how to constantly be aware of traffic in the vicinity without the use of ATC, which is not needed if you fly outside controlled airspace or even worse by making the corridor a controlled airspace which would mean the end of plane and heli rides around manhattan. Gliders in europe have started fitting a small instrument (as cockpits are small and cramped up to every usable inch) called Flarm or another one called T-Advisor DSX. Apart the fact that later model didn't see each other any more for some strange commercial reason, fitting these instruments on gliders reduced significantly the possibility of an air mishaps alongside ridges or thermalling up together with many others in the same thermal. Both instruments work with GPS and a small transmitter that locate other similar instruments in the vicinity that is then displayed as a small led lighting up around your plane in the direction of the interested traffic. I did flew the corridor once with an instructor from nassau flyers and enjoyed it very much. visibility was probably less the 3 miles after abeam central park, but we were still able to spot a banner towed by a PA18, slower than our 172, we just duck a couple hundred feet and overtook him. As an italian ATCo I'm against the idea to rely such huge amount of heterogeneous traffic to atc, as it would surely impact on the availability and economy of said route, especially as it would have little radar coverage and a very narrow space to keep them separeted, but that is just my opinion.
|
Looks like a difference of opinion is starting between NTSB and the controller's union:
Controllers: NTSB report on Hudson collision wrong - Yahoo! News |
"Plenty of voices are calling immediate action of some sort in the wake of last week's midair collision over the Hudson River. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been a welcome voice on reason amid the clamor"
Hudson MidAir: Let The Howling Begin August 10, 2009 By Paul Bertorelli In the wake of an accident like the unfortunate midair between a helicopter and a Lance in New York's Hudson corridor over the weekend, being in the aviation press isn't so much like waiting for the other shoe to drop as it is trying to count how many shoes zing by. Predictably, New York Senator Charles "I-Never-Met-a–Rule-I-Didn't-Like" Schumer called for more regulation. Refreshingly, New York's level-headed mayor, Michael Bloomberg, counseled for everyone to take a deep breath. He performed a similar function when Cory Lidle flew into an East Side apartment building in 2006 while trying to extricate himself from the East River corridor. To general aviation's considerable benefit, Bloomberg is a pilot and an aircraft owner, so not only does he get it, he's in a position to explain to the general public exactly what they have to get, too. The "it" I am referring to here is understanding relative risk and learning to live with the fact that when you get into any kind of airborne conveyance, there's always the remote chance it will come violently back to earth and you'll be injured or killed. Gravity is said to be one of the universe's weakest forces, but it is, if nothing else, relentless. I've flown the Hudson corridor so much that I've lost count. Sometimes it's busy, sometimes it's deserted. Often, you'll drive yourself to distraction looking for an airplane you hear on the self-announce frequencies but never see. Given the volume of traffic over the river, the number of accidents is trivially small, as is the risk. There are more fatal accidents on the Palisades Parkway running on the Jersey side of the river than there are in the air over it. Already, I'm seeing calls for requiring ADS-B or TCAS generally or in the corridor. While these systems are certainly an option, pilots, owners and operators will have to spend a ton of money to install them to mitigate what is, in the end, a tiny risk. And that applies to mid-air collisions everywhere. In the grand scheme of things, if you eliminated every GA mid-air collision, you'd move the accident rate needle a little, but not much. There are a dozen or fewer fatal mid-airs each year, against 1800 or so total GA accidents, 350 to 400 of which are fatal. One city official suggested banning sightseeing helicopters, but that's silly. Like the Grand Canyon, New York's skyline is a great national treasure and anyone who wants to should have the right to see it. The mechanisms to manage the risk are in place—well understood rules of the road and published self-announce frequencies, radar advisories—to make it a reasonably safe thing to do. But that doesn't mean you still can't get killed doing it, a risk that applies to everything from going to the dentist to changing a light bulb. Which is exactly what Michael Bloomberg was saying and to which I reply: Right on, your honor. Copyright Aviation Publishing Group
|
Berniecta posted: "Gliders in europe have started fitting a small instrument (as cockpits are small and cramped up to every usable inch) called Flarm or another one called T-Advisor DSX. "
I did a google search of these products. Very interesting. Surely, the FAA could fund something affordable like this. And make it heads up, instead of on the panel. slowrotor |
A corridor dedicated for sight-seeing purposes only
Since that is what it's mostly used for, seriously.
Planes at 1,000 to 1100 feet, helicopters below with appropriate separation. Enter from George Washington Bridge, the other end would be the Statue of Liberty, to turn around and fly back to the bridge and exit. No entering from the side, no transitting except in controlled airspace above, say, 1,200 feet. This unique tourist attraction would be retained, and everybody should be happy. Like gazing into the Grand Canyon. Yes? :) |
Berniecta posted: "Gliders in europe have started fitting a small instrument (as cockpits are small and cramped up to every usable inch) called Flarm or another one called T-Advisor DSX. " I did a google search of these products. Very interesting. Surely, the FAA could fund something affordable like this. And make it heads up, instead of on the panel. slowrotor |
Did the plane loose the engine?
I've been trying to keep up with the developments on this investigation, so sorry to all if this question has been discussed earlier.
It was reported a day or two after the crash that the fixed wing had lost an engine before impact; has this been confirmed? The video that surfaced a few days after is not conclusive to me - anyway. It looks like the prop is turning when the two crafts hit but I can't see if the prop is turning at full or near full power. There have been a couple of recent reports on the Teeterboro controllers and but nothing I know of related to possible communication to controllers of engine failure on the winged craft. Thx. |
If today, some inventor demonstrated a $25 device that showed you all traffic of concern that you could velcro to the top of the panel and run on a battery good for 50 years, it would take ICAO and the various CAA's upwards of 15 years to certify and mandate ithttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...s/badteeth.gif |
It's very busy airspace. Having something or someone warn about nearby traffic might help, but as some early posts on this thread indicated, pilots need to focus on "see and avoid" while passengers sight-see. Still, you can't look everywhere at once. This was a rare event.
Even turning to avoid the collision may have caused the plane's wing to strike the helicopter, leading to the unrecoverable situation for both. Teterboro Airport - AirportMonitor - by Megadata - powered by PASSUR |
I got flamed at the mere mention of some regulation (despite the number of near misses and with no mention of what that regulation might be - even self regulation). The message was "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen; we're safe enough" :ugh: Not sure that the NTSB will see things quite that way...
However, since we've all been 'surprised' by another aircraft suddenly appearing rather close by at some time or another and in the interests of safety, I think the Flarm and T-Advisor DSX type products would be a big step forward - but they're still quite expensive. We know GPS based proximity alert features already exist in a number cell phone applications for marketing promotions, dating apps, etc. It wouldn't be at all difficult for say, Garmin, to develop this and market it as a cost effective option (even an upgrade) on all it's aviation products. It would still rely on other aircraft having the same system, but without the need to buy additional hardware, this would be much easier and cheaper to roll out. Sounds like an opportunity for someone :ok: |
ttb, some of the Garmin units (430, 530 I believe) already have something like this, though I believe it requires transponders and to be painted by radar in order for them to get the data.
Been a while since I used a unit like that (and recall turning it off in because of too many false alerts), so someone with more recent experience might be able to enlighten us. |
Midair collision over the hudson piper(?)-helicopter on tape
it happened few weeks ago.. now they got the tape from a guy who was just using his brand new camera for the first time, on a boat on the hudson.
hard to watch. TAKEOFF TUBE - Mid air crash over the hudson caught on tape |
Thanks estrellafugaz, but this had already been posted a while ago!
|
ops sorry! i just bumped into it.. and i wanted to share it.
will read more carefully next time :) :} |
The NTSB preliminary report is out. Nothing new to report that hasn't been detailed on this thread.
ERA09MA447B NTSB Identification: ERA09MA447B Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter Accident occurred Saturday, August 08, 2009 in Hoboken, NJ Aircraft: EUROCOPTER AS 350 BA, registration: 401LH Injuries: 9 Fatal. This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. On August 8, 2009, about 1153 eastern daylight time, a Piper PA-32R-300 airplane, N71MC, operated by a private pilot, and a Eurocopter AS350 BA helicopter, N401LH, operated by Liberty Helicopters, were substantially damaged following a midair collision over the Hudson River near Hoboken, New Jersey. The certificated private pilot and two passengers aboard the airplane and the certificated commercial pilot and five passengers aboard the helicopter and were killed. The airplane flight was a personal flight conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91.The helicopter flight was a local sightseeing flight conducted under the provisions of 14 CFR Parts 135 and 136. The airplane departed Teterboro Airport (TEB), Teterboro, New Jersey, about 1149, destined for Ocean City Municipal Airport, Ocean City, New Jersey. The helicopter departed West 30th Street Heliport, New York, New York, about 1152. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plans were required or filed for either flight. However, the pilot of the airplane requested flight-following services from TEB air traffic control (ATC). The pilot of the accident airplane contacted the clearance delivery controller in the TEB ATC tower about 1140:01, requesting departure clearance and VFR radar traffic advisory service en route to Ocean City, New Jersey, at 3,500 feet. The pilot's requested route and altitude required that the flight enter the class B airspace overlying TEB. The clearance delivery controller issued the pilot a discrete transponder code. While the airplane was taxiing to the runway, the TEB local controller offered the pilot the choice of departing TEB straight out or over the river. The pilot elected to fly down the Hudson River, which necessitated eventual coordination with controllers at EWR for authorization to climb into the class B airspace. However, existing procedures did not require TEB controllers to coordinate for a class B clearance for the pilot, and the local controller did not do so. The accident airplane departed TEB about 1149 and the local controller advised the pilot of a helicopter arriving at the airport. The local controller instructed the pilot to remain at or below 1,100 feet. At this time, the tower controller initiated a non-business-related phone call to Teterboro Airport Operations which lasted until about one second prior to the collision. The airplane flew southbound until the local controller instructed the pilot to turn left (southeast) and join the Hudson River. About 1152:20, the pilot acknowledged an instruction from the TEB local controller to change frequencies and contact controllers at EWR. A preliminary review of recorded ATC communications showed that the pilot did not contact EWR before the accident. About 1153:17, about the time of the accident, the TEB local controller contacted the EWR controller to ask about the airplane and was told that the pilot had not called. There are no known additional ATC contacts with the airplane. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has not determined what frequency the pilot was monitoring at the time of the accident. The accident helicopter departed from the 30th Street Heliport, which is in the Hudson River class B exclusion area, about 1152, for a 12-minute tour. The initial part of the tour was to be flown below class B airspace, so the pilot was not required to contact ATC. Although the nature of any transmissions made by aircraft on the CTAF is not known because the CTAF is not recorded, a Liberty Helicopters’ pilot waiting to depart from the heliport reported that the pilot of the accident helicopter made a position report on the CTAF just before the collision. The first radar target for the accident helicopter was detected by the Federal Aviation Administration's EWR radar site about 1152:27, when the helicopter was west of the heliport, approximately mid river, and climbing through 400 feet. According to recorded radar data, the helicopter flew to the west side of the river and then turned south to follow the Hudson River. The accident helicopter continued climbing southbound until 1153:14, when the collision occurred. Radar data and witness statements indicate that the aircraft collided at 1,100 feet in the vicinity of Stevens Point. Most of the wreckage fell into the Hudson River; however, some small debris from the airplane, including the right main landing gear wheel, fell on land within the city limits of Hoboken. The collision was witnessed by numerous people in the area of the accident and was immediately reported to local emergency responders. The helicopter was recovered on August 9, 2009. Most of the helicopter components were accounted for at the scene, with the exception of the main rotor and transmission. The airplane was recovered on August 11, 2009. Most of the airplane components were accounted for at the scene, with the exception of both wings. The wreckage of both aircraft were subsequently transported to a secure facility in Delaware. The pilot of the airplane, age 60, held a private pilot certificate, with ratings for airplane single-engine land, airplane multiengine land and instrument airplane. His most recent FAA third-class medical certificate was issued on May 14, 2009. At that time he reported a total flight experience of 1,020 hours. The pilot of the helicopter, age 32, held a commercial pilot certificate, with ratings for rotorcraft helicopter and instrument helicopter. His most recent FAA second-class medical certificate was issued on June 16, 2009. At that time he reported a total flight experience of 3,010 hours. Digital photographs and a video recording taken by witnesses to the accident have been provided to the NTSB. In addition, a digital camera was recovered from the helicopter. All of these were sent to the NTSB Vehicle Recorders Laboratory in Washington, D.C. for further examination. Global Positioning System units were recovered from both aircraft and also forwarded to the NTSB Vehicle Recorders Laboratory. The recorded weather at TEB at 1151 was wind variable at 3 knots, visibility 10 miles, sky clear, temperature 24 degrees Celsius, dew point 7 degrees Celsius, altimeter 30.23 inches of mercury.Index for Aug2009 | Index of months |
Would the airplane pilot normally be listening to ATC and CTAF at the same time while flying this VFR corridor?
If not, then this could be a problem, I think. slowrotor |
There is no ATC in the corridor, which I've flown any number of times. The only "ATC" is a voluntary system of pilots communicating their location at certain informal reporting points,on a common frequency. The corridor has no radar coverage, so how could there be ATC?
|
Thanks stepwilk,
but read post #200, the pilot requested flight following: "However, the pilot of the airplane requested flight-following services from TEB air traffic control (ATC)." I have encountered this myself in my local area. With just one radio, I need to decide if I want to ask for radar flight following or listen to CTAF. My question is: what do pilots do in this situation? slowrotor |
Well, I don't know if that's accurate, but who does the flight following? TEB tower? I don't think so, they're busy enough. EWR departure or local? I doubt that too, since they can't see you on radar and have better things to do anyway.
It's fine to request flight following if you're cutting a corner to go over the Gulf of Mexico or traversing a mountainous region, but to think "flight following" will help you in the zoo that is the Hudson Corridor is insane. Imagine: a private pilot from the UK could come over here, rent a 172 and barrel down the Hudson Corridor keeping to the left, as he or she might be wont to do. No law against it. Other airplanes, if he's even on the frequency, are reporting local-knowledge points with shorthand names that those of us who fly around New York know, but there's no requirement that anybody else does. So much of the discussion of this accident has focused on this or that measure of "control," including the red herring that the TEB tower controller was on the phone to his girlfriend, which had nothing to do with anything other than the fact that he chose the worst possible time he might have to discuss with his squeeze barbequeing a cat. Can't anybody understand that there is NO CONTROL in the corridor, no approach, no departure, no ATC, no flight following, other than see-and-avoid and the basically informal procedures about position reporting that have been put in place over the years? Nothing wrong with that, it has worked for years. Frankly, the only thing I'd wonder about is entering the corridor from the side. I've always considered it "a tunnel": come in at the GWB, exit at the SoL. And vice-versa. |
Are you saying the airplane pilot should have been listening on CTAF when entering the corridor instead of talking to the tower and requesting flight following?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:55. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.