A lot of folks have been asking me about the Hudson River mid-air collision on Saturday, including some WCVB TV reporters (clip). The best information that I’ve been able to find is a New York Times graphic showing the path of the accident airplane.
Some context may be obtained by visiting http://skyvector.com/ and choosing the New York Terminal Area Chart (currently the default on the site). Most of the airspace around New York City is Class B, the most protected airspace in the U.S. In Class B airspace every aircraft must be talking to air traffic control, identified on radar, and positively separated from other aircraft. This is how we fly our sightseeing tours over downtown Boston, which falls within Logan Airport’s Class B. Due to the historically large numbers of sightseeing airplanes and helicopters zipping up and down the Hudson River, the FAA decades ago carved out a “VFR corridor” to allow aircraft flying over the river at or below 1100′ above sea level to fly without talking to a controller. In fact, an airplane could fly through the corridor without being equipped with a radio.
The FAA does not explain how pilots should use the corridor. Common sense and convention suggests the following:
- keep to the right
- fly low (700′ or below) if you’re a helicopter and not subject to the “at least 500′ above any vessel, person, or structure” rule
- fly high-ish (900′ to 1100′) if you’re an airplane
- tune your radio to the published common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) and periodically broadcast position reports
Teterboro Airport is more or less abeam mid-town Manhattan. An airplane departing Teterboro could enter the corridor almost anywhere. Whenever I have done it, however, it has made sense to me to first head north over the land and still within Teterboro’s controlled airspace. I enter the corridor at the George Washington Bridge. The tour helicopters generally don’t come that far north. I switch to CTAF and say “Hudson River Traffic, Cirrus Seven Whiskey Tango at the George Washington Bridge southbound 900”. The next call is abeam Central Park. Even at 110 knots I have a couple of minutes in which to let the downtown mob know that I’m coming and to listen for airplanes and helicopters farther downtown.
With this accident, it appears that the helicopter may have climbed higher than typical, perhaps close to the 1100′ ceiling of the corridor. More problematic was the airplane pilot’s decision to enter the busy corridor on a busy weekend day at its busiest spot, more or less abeam the W. 30th St. heliport. He would have been required to be talking to Teterboro or Newark Tower until the very moment that he was over the river (though there is some suggestion in today’s New York Times that he was handed off from TEB to EWR and did not check in with Newark). He thus denied himself the chance to spend a minute or two broadcasting his progress down the river and listening for the helicopter who would surely have reported lifting from W. 30th. Had the airplane pilot spent an additional four minutes of flight time (two minutes north to the G.W. Bridge and then two minutes south down the river) the accident probably could have been avoided. This is not to criticize the pilot. The Teterboro controllers are not famous for being friendly or flexible. It is possible that the airplane pilot asked to fly north first and was denied due to traffic (TEB is one of the nation’s busiest airports).
Should anything be done? It might be helpful if the FAA published an official guide to using the Hudson River corridor codifying the rules listed above and adding one new rule: airplanes should enter the corridor at the G.W. Bridge or farther north and/or from the Verrazano Bridge or farther south. Controllers at nearby airports should be trained to encourage pilots to follow those entry procedures. Except for seaplanes or helicopters lifting from the river itself, nobody should join the party right in the middle (a seaplane or helicopter taking off from inside the corridor would likely have been monitoring the CTAF for at least a couple of minutes).
About a month ago, I had to go to Washington, D.C. to be deposed as a software expert witness (albeit not as an aviation expert witness). As the weather was fairly nice, I elected to fly a Cirrus SR20 down there and stopped at Teterboro for lunch with a cousin. I brought my nephew along for the trip and decided to show him New York City from the Hudson corridor. It was the middle of the week rather than a weekend day. We flew north to the G.W. Bridge prior to entering the corridor. We stayed at 900′ and never got close to any other aircraft as far as I know.
The only bravo I’ve ever flown in is Boston’s, which seems, as far as Bravos go, to be relatively low-traffic. That said, I’ve never been denied a request for a city tour, and only once or twice denied a transit request when flying from the Cape back to Hanscom.
I have to wonder how much time and expense it would take to have something akin to the Boston Skyways controller for New York? There’s certainly the added complexity of the four airports in the area, but it seems to me they could figure something out?
It’s not ideal, sure, but if there’s another incident over the Hudson, it seems to me that the FAA will end up revoking the VFR corridor completely. Better to figure out how to have a VFR-oriented controller owning the airspace than have it revoked completely, as (clearly) it is a popular feature of the New York airspace.
Let’s be careful about quickly suggesting new FAA “rules” in response to this tragic collision. As far as I can remember, there is guidance to the effect you suggest widely available, though with my pilot bag at the hangar, I can’t easily look up whether the procedures are in the AIM, on the NY Terminal Area chart, or the outside chance that they are literally only published on private aviation newsgroups and passed along by word-of-mouth. (I can’t believe that it’s only the latter.) I seem to recall seeing that exact list of procedures (minus your proposed addition of course), published in some FAA-sourced document or other.
The corridor is crowded airspace, but I’ve flown it probably 2 dozen times at the 900-1000 foot level, and another dozen times overflown it in class B airspace but over roughly the same ground track. I always thought it amazing that the FAA had the, I’ll call it gumption, to carve out that corridor and I’d hate to see them move to shut it down, or turn it into Boston’s class B airspace over the Charles. (I’m based at LWM and I’ve only flown over the Charles once and that was on a departure from Logan.)
If we knee-jerk over-react to every apparently preventable accident, we risk giving up the amazing freedom we enjoy as private pilots small measures at a time, until we have none left. Any mid-air collision resulting in fatalities is tragic. Not all of them (and in fact very few of them) call for new FAA rules, IMO.
Even with the southerly entry point, the pilot had at least a couple of miles during which he was clear of TEB’s Class D and could have used the traffic frequency. I wonder why he was still talking to ATC instead. Maybe he was getting radar advisories and expecting an imminent clearance up into Class B.
Of course, his primary means for avoidance should have been visual. There’s been a lot of discussion of the aircraft’s blind spots; the airplane’s right turn into the corridor made it especially hard to see the helicopter ahead and below to the left. It would have been a good idea for the pilot to execute a clearing turn before reaching the river; I wonder if he did that. (The radar track doesn’t reveal a clearing turn, but the track may be too coarse for that to show up.)
I’d also imagine that the helicopter pilot should have performed some shallow S-turns to extend his field of view while climbing, especially if climbing to an altitude frequented by faster-moving airplanes. (Again, perhaps he did.)
Have there ever been other mid-air collisions in the Hudson corridor? This is certainly the only one in recent memory.
The FAA does make some recommendations. If one consults the NY Terminal Area Chart, it includes a detailed chart of the Hudson River area on the reverse side with information boxes with procedures to follow. It shows the helicopter routes as well. It does suggest that the air tour operations are at an altitude of 500 feet AGL near the Statue of Liberty.
Your suggestions regarding altitude selection are good. Also there have been aviation safety seminars with discussions of how to fly the Hudson River that cover the suggested reporting points.
I had been planning on doing a helitour of NYC…now, I don’t think so!
What kind of expert witness were you, if not aviation??
Tom: I wouldn’t let one collision after 20+ years deter you from the New York tour. I’ve been an expert witness in Internet and software patent cases. In this particular case I was a relational database expert witness.
Phil: Isn’t there already a rule that helicopters are supposed to “avoid the flow of fixed-wing traffic”? Is there any way for a helicopter to do that other than by staying low? Not to criticized the helicopter pilot, because we don’t have the complete picture, but isn’t a helicopter pilot putting himself in harm’s way by flying that high?
I don’t think it is possible to fly the Hudson River VFR corridor respecting the FAR unless you fly a helicopter. The GWB towers are more than 600 feet tall and there are plenty of other structures vessels and people within the 1000/2000 feet minimum distance required by the FAR over congested areas. In my opinion it takes a very generous interpretation of what meets the description of “other than congested area” to accept that it is possible to maintain minimum safe (meaning legal) altitudes while flying the corridor. That said, I’m all in favor of maintaining the corridor open to VRF traffic. The recent ditching of a commercial airplane proves that air traffic over the river poses no danger to the general public.
Mike: I’m pretty sure that the “avoid the flow of fixed wing traffic” is always presented in the context of landing at an airport. The FAA does not explicitly discourage a helicopter from flying at standard VFR or IFR altitudes while en-route.
Anon: Although FAR 91.119 doesn’t say explicitly what a “congested area” is, the regulation does categorize “open water” as being other than a congested area, so flying between the shores of the Hudson River should qualify as non-congested. Then, the relevant airplane requirement is to stay 500′ from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. (The GWB towers are closer than that if you overfly them directly, but not if you offset a bit at 1100′.)
Gary: I don’t think the Hudson River at NYC can be considered “open water.” The problem with many of the FAA rules and directions is that they are very open to interpretation. For years I flew with a US pilot certificate based on my Spanish one that stated that all the “all limitations and restrictions on the Spanish pilot license apply.” That statement is a lot more ambiguous than what you many think at first glance. So, eight years ago I took the US exam and got a US certificate. But, the FAA being the FAA, I still have one limitation: “dual citizenship includes Spain.” Can anyone explain how that affects flying?
I copied and pasted this from the FAA site showing my certificate information:
Limits
DUAL CITIZENSHIP INCLUDES SPAIN.
Some specific rules:
91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace
Each pilot of a helicopter must avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft. Normally, aircraft would make all turns to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right.
91.129 Operations in Class D airspace
Avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft, if operating a helicopter. Comply with all other requirements such as communication requirements with the tower.
AIM (http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0403.html)
4-3-17. VFR Helicopter Operations at Controlled Airports
Looking at the photos of the accident, if the airplane had the CAPS system (like in the Cirrus) would that have potential saved the people on the airplane? Although the altitude was probably too low for a full deployment of the CAPS.
More details from the NTSB today:
“A Teterboro controller asked the plane pilot if he wanted to go down the river or southwest. When the Piper pilot answered, ‘Either,’ the controller told him to ‘Let me know.’ ‘OK, tell you what,’ pilot Steven Altman answered, ‘I’ll take down the river.'”
“The helicopter was gaining altitude when the two hit.”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/08/10/nypd_bodies_of_plane_pilot_adult_passenger_remain_missing/
Patxaran: The FARs don’t define “open water”, but I believe the ordinary usage of that term does include rivers.
I have flown LAX airspace in a helicopter (Los Angeles,CA) and I doubt there is a busier helicopter traffic flow anywhere in the nation. If their class Bravo airspace and it’s surroundings can be managed without incident, anyone’s can.
One thing I remember distinctly from my Rotorcraft Private pilot training: Most mid-air collisions occur in sunny, clear conditions. Reason? Pilot’s aren’t scanning outside the aircraft as they should be simply because it’s so clear and beautiful.
I think what it is clear is that many pilots fly the VFR corridor every year in plain view of the FAA Teterboro office. I’m afraid that is about to change as a consequence of this unfortunate accident, and the Hudson will share the restrictions that were imposed on the East River a few years ago. I completely agree with the recommendations made by the host. They reflect basic common sense that any good pilot should use as guide, much like following the recommendations for pattern entry at an uncontrolled airport. Unfortunately the FAA will, in my opinion, will not stop at that.
Philip, what would you think of restricting commercial sightseeing helicopters to 700′ or lower over the crowded portion of the Hudson (or at least requiring ATC permission to go higher)? Would that be unduly burdensome, or would it just mandate a safety convention that’s almost always followed anyway?
Gary: It probably would make sense to restrict the run-of-the-mill sightseeing tours to 700′ and below. I think sometimes the tour operators climb higher so that they can cross over Central Park with LaGuardia Tower (at 1500′?).
There is now a NOTAM for the area.
FDC 9/3952 ZNY NY.. SPECIAL NOTICE.. HUDSON AND EAST RIVERS, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. DUE TO A HIGH DENSITY OF UNCONTROLLED HELICOPTER AND FIXED WING TRAFFIC OPERATING ON THE HUDSON AND EAST RIVER CLASS B EXCLUSION AREAS, PILOTS ARE ADVISED TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES SET FORTH BELOW PRIOR TO ENTERING THIS AIRSPACE: A. SELF ANNOUNCE ON 123.075 FOR THE EAST RIVER AND 123.05 FOR THE HUDSON RIVER. B. ANNOUNCE INTENDED ROUTE ON INITIAL CONTACT C. TURN ON ANTI-COLLISION, POSITION/NAVIGATION, AND/OR LANDING LIGHTS. D. DO NOT EXCEED 140 KNOTS IAS. THESE RECOMMENDATIONS DO NOT RELIEVE PILOTS OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS, INCLUDING REGULATIONS GOVERNING MINIMUM SAFE ALTITUDES, AND SEE AND AVOID RESPONSIBILITIES. PILOTS ARE STRONGLY ADVISED AND ENCOURAGED TO ADHERE TO THE PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN THIS SPECIAL NOTICE AND ADHERE TO ALL APPLICABLE FAA PUBLICATIONS, CHARTS AND COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS WHILE OPERATING IN THE NEW YORK AREA.
I recorded a way to get class B clearance so you can go to east river as well. You need to get to newark tower, center will not give it to you. Video is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUQZ470ONfk clearance starts at 00:45. This is the safest way to do it.