Comments on: Hudson River Recap

By: Mike Hayden

Mike Hayden — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 10:52:33 +0000

The comment I submitted 9/25/10 at 5;46 am was meant for the “Bad Day at Huntington” accident review and not “Hudson River Recap”..

By: Mike Hayden

Mike Hayden — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 10:46:36 +0000

Had the pilot used something as simple and easy as Flight Following he would have some warning from ATC of the deteriorating weather on his route. I recall a VFR flight I made from Boston using Flight Following when I was told by ATC of a long line of severe thunderstorms over the Columbus, Ohio area that the controller said I could neither go over nor conveniently go around. I landed at a nearby airport and spent several hours safely on the ground waiting for it to pass.

By: Bruce Landsberg

Bruce Landsberg — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 17:29:30 +0000

Craig….

Thank you for the reference – we will review it in detail.

By: C. Craig Morris

C. Craig Morris — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 23:41:32 +0000

Bruce, you’re off the mark in this article, and you’re doing a disservice to general aviation, pilots, and their passengers. See and avoid is the root problem of all midair collisions, not just this one with its interesting, but hardly germane, peculiarities. For an exact analysis of limitations of the see and avoid concept, see: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asma/asem/2005/00000076/00000004/art00007.

By: MJSchwartz

MJSchwartz — Fri, 17 Sep 2010 17:08:48 +0000

I believe the NTSB got it right. Both aircraft were VFR. The foundation for Visual Flight Rules is to see and avoid terrain, other aircraft, etc. Anyone who has been flying for a while, and is honest with themselves, completely understands that there are serious limitations to seeing and avoiding other small aircraft in the daytime. It’s a lot easier at night (with strobes, beacons and position lights). I’ve been flying with a TCAD system for the past 5 years and I am amazed at how many aircraft I miss with my normal visual scan (and that’s in relatively uncongested airspace).

By: John Wyker

John Wyker — Fri, 17 Sep 2010 12:23:31 +0000

They missed the entire point of it. The controller was talking on his phone while he was supposed to be controlling traffic. The railroad industry had a wake-up call in this area last year when an engineer was texting instead of paying attention to operating his train. He ran by a “Stop” signal and had a head-on collision with another train. Personal phones should be banned in the cockpit and in the control tower, approach or center.

By: Chris P.

Chris P. — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 06:06:03 +0000

I concur with Bob H. to an extent. I watched the entire Board Meeting via web cast.

Tom Haueter, an aviation safety expert and staff member employed by the NTSB for over 26 years, vigorously argued to the Board to place the Teterboro tower controller’s non-pertinent “dead cat” telephone call at the top of the probable cause list. Although he was unsuccessful, it was clear to anyone watching the logic of his case was incontrovertible.

Why the Board placed the limitations of “see and avoid” at the top is anyone’s guess. Chairman Hersman’s Vice Chairman, Christopher Hart, was absent. It seemed as though the Board was frustrated and tired. They had difficultly getting the exact language of the probable cause adopted. The FAA has termination proceedings against the controller in question and his supervisor.

As Mr. Haueter argued, the limitations of “see and avoid” has been known since the deadly mid air over the Grand Canyon in 1956. That accident was the catalyst for sweeping changes in regulating air traffic.

Only time will tell if the lessons of this tragedy are learned.

By: Bob H.

Bob H. — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 01:20:57 +0000

Alternate ending: The NTSB finds that mediocrity and complacency on the part of ATC were deadly factors in the crash.

The pilot in command of the aircraft requested 3500 and NO ONE has provided a sufficiently reasonable justification for why that request was ignored. Organizational intransigence is not a a sufficient justification, but ymmv.

“Do it right or not at all,” needs to come right after ” …safe, orderly and expeditious….”