Comments on: Thoughts on the Hudson River midair

By: Howard Tedoff

Howard Tedoff — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 15:30:00 +0000

Russ Bassani makes the most rational argument. I would only add ‘…announce your position’ and “…stick to the right side policy”.
This was the first ever mid-air within the corridor. Most often, it is not at all busy but is almost always serene to a pilot.
.

By: Russ Bassani

Russ Bassani — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 02:51:30 +0000

Folks,
I’ve flown the Hudson River many many times since getting my license in 1973 and have always
maintained a “stick to the Right policy”, as Jersey side when Southbound, City side when Northbound,
lights on, and 1,000 feet AGL.

That coupled with “eyes outside the cockpit”, and things were fine.
All this talk of Teterboro tower’s responsibility, and more regs, is trash talk.

By: DAVID KAHN

DAVID KAHN — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:40:03 +0000

The video of the recent accident also suggested to me that the blind spot created by a low wing aircraft with a climbing helicopter may have been contributory. I Have flown the Hudson corridor over the past many years, and like most, have felt very edgy at times. I would often feel the need for more eyeballs looking out for traffic.

Although I have not flown this route since 9/11, given my concerns, I had adopted the procedure of arranging a class B clearance at 1500 feet, often to start near the Tappan Zee bridge. This gave me the obvious added benefit of separation with all VFR traffic in the corridor. In addition, I usually was able to get a clearance up the East River and then directly over Laguardia tower to exit the airspace to the North. In this circumstance, I never even contemplated the need to turn around in the narrow East River to reverse course, something that would have helped Corey Lidell in his Cirrus accident.

Although the above method is my way of staying safe, I am not advocating that the corridor be placed strictly under control of the controllers since there are precious few, if any other corridors for VFR traffic to get through the NY metropolitan airspace from north and south

By: shellEy Rosenbaum Lipman

shellEy Rosenbaum Lipman — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 13:17:03 +0000

I flew the Hudson River corridor for many years (fixed-wing). I would always self-announce (as would many other pilots), but I hadn’t begun doing that until I went to a local safety seminar. Why? At least in those days, the Terminal chart said something like, “helicopter pilots or East River traffic self-announce on …” Since I was fixed-wing on the Hudson, I thought it didn’t apply to me. I don’t know if they’ve updated the chart (I moved away from the area nearly 15 years ago), but if it still is this confusing, others may not be self-announcing.

Second, there should be specific entry/exit points for the Hudson. I can’t understand how the Saratoga pilot could have legally entered the corridor where he did: by flying due east from Teterboro, there is no way he could have been 1000′ above the ground, since the cliffs of the Palisades are ~200-300′ high, and the base of the Class B is 1100 MSL. I always entered around the Tappan Zee Bridge, where the base of Class B is 2500′. That also allows time to get established to get a better situation awareness of all the traffic.

By: FRED BASHARA

FRED BASHARA — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:46:39 +0000

i HAVE BEEN FLYING FOR OVER 40 YEARS AND HAVE OWNED 5 AIRPLANES. FLYNG PASSENGERS IN A AIRSPACE SUCH AS THE HUDSON RIVER CORRIDOR IS A :LOOK AT ME” ACT LIKE BUZZYING YOUR GIRLFRIENDS HOUSE “I.M FLYING..WATCH THIS”
THE PIPER PILOT COULD HAVE FILED IFR TO OCEAN CITY AND BE ALIVE TODAT AND SO WOULD HIS VICTIMS BE ALIVE.
THEY ALL DIED SO THE PIPER PILOT COULD POINT OUT BUILDINGS.
THERE IS SIMPLY TOO MUCH OF THIS DARING DO TODAY, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN ROOM FOR IT 50 YEARS AGO BUT NOT NOW.

By: Sandy St.John

Sandy St.John — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:09:37 +0000

I’m just a GA pilot in Texas, and have never flown the Hudson River. But flying a lot around Dallas Class B, and with my business all around the country, I know a little about busy airspace. I self announce my position regularly everywhere (except when flying IFR or on flight following, controlled airspace, etc) – because a mid-air can happen anywhere, anytime. I recently partcipated in the 2009 Air Race Classic – we were low level high speed for 2400 miles – and all 33 teams were self announcing their positions along the race route – not only for the other racers, but also for the local pilots who might out for a joy ride.
It only takes one mid-air to ruin our day – and we’ve only got one life to live. I’d rather clog up the frequencies with a few short, informative, postion calls than have someone bagging up my body later on in the day.

By: Bill Mager

Bill Mager — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:39:37 +0000

The last time I flew the Hudson corridor in a Cessna 172 it seemed prudent to keep high 950 ft. and announce at the recommended points. North-bound all went well. Choppers were well below and visible. However, on the return trip, Southbound on the NJ side, at the same altitude I was surpised to see a North-bound light twin cut across the river in front of me. It passed just below and appeared to be inbound to Teterboro. I generally avoid the corridor as I’m not sure what the Teterboro pattern entry rules are from the Hudson corridor.

By: Bill Gillette

Bill Gillette — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:46:10 +0000

As an outsider, I prefer the recommendation for a “familiarization course” and I’d add a code for the updated familiarization such as “with Delta” or the like. Also, changes in altitude of 50ft. need to be announced. After 50 years of safe flying I’m staying out of crowded uncontrolled airspace and I’m wondering why I ever wanted to fly in it. If you are flying VFR over the Hudson and enjoying it, you are obviously overlooking something. I’ve seen the video of the tragic accident and I recognize the match-up of blind spots. As a Cessna pilot I have seen low wing aircraft pass over me unexpectedly, both of us calling the tower afterward to find out what gives. Those blind spots are huge. Perhaps the corridor could be layered with high wing restricted to a layer above low wing. Self reporting sounds good, but if another pilot reports a position near you there won’t be any time to visually clear those blind spots. If you are inexperienced in these corridors, take my learning to heart: either fly the fastest aircraft or stay the heck out.

By: Mark Douglas

Mark Douglas — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:48:42 +0000

I somewhat agree with the comment about TCAS but I wonder if maybe requiring ADS-B equipment in the corridor wouldn’t add a level of additional information, be an excellent use of that technology and also filter out casual pilots who don’t invest in the technology. It would effectively be a one-time fee of approximately $8,000 per aircraft for the equipment to use the corridor while directly adding to safety there. It would also likely placate critics who don’t understand how airplanes are allowed to fly without always being under air traffic control by showing them an automated way of adding the safety margin that comes from ATC.

By: Doug Helton

Doug Helton — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:40:14 +0000

I’m with Avi Weiss on this one. It is dangerous to mix different speed aircraft in such a tight space especially when slower helicopters can enter from below or from the side. I’ve flown down the corridor several times in a mooney, bonanza and cherokee six. You just have no room to maneuver in a fixed wing aircraft. You’ve got Class B airspace just to the right and above you and opposite direction to the left. The only place you have to go is down into helicopter traffic and closer to obstructions. Introducing a helicopter at slower speed into the mix from any direction is disaster waiting to happen. That doesn’t apply to just helicopters either. Mixing a slow (e.g. piper cub) and fast (bonanza) fixed wing aircraft is a bad idea too with such limited maneuvering space. Requiring fast aircraft to slow down a lot isn’t a good answer for matching speeds due to the nose-high attitude required to maintain slower speeds.

I see no reason that a helicopter should be higher than 800′ in the corridor…granted this is based on my limited knowledge of the variety of helicopter operations in this area. Increasing the ceiling to at least 1,200 would leave 400′ to provide fixed wing traffic with “primary and passing lanes” or “slow and fast lanes” so to speak. Rasing the ceiling further would provide better options for separating crossing helicopter traffic as well.

Good procedures will do way more to solve these issues than regulation or ATC control.