Controller responsibility for Helicopters Policy change by FAA

Justin M

Line Up and Wait
PoA Supporter
Joined
Oct 23, 2016
Messages
953
Display Name
JM
Home Airfield
KMMU
I don't know enough about this topic, but I look forward to hearing you elucidate the issue, actual ruling and make comments.

KTLA 5 reports on "FAA Ends See and Avoid Rule" for helicopters in mid-sized airports.

 
It's a horrible rule. ATC is overworked enough already.

Typical FAA; create a knee-jerk safety rule based off a single pilot's ****up, and treat all the other pilots like they're unskilled labor.
 
I flew helicopters for 26 years, in some of the busiest airspace on the planet, with never so much as a close call. While there is no doubt risk, this may be an overreaction. When complying with all published regulations and SOPs, the risk can be mitigated. Now if normalization of deviance ensues, sure that can be problematic. But that is not just limited to helicopters. Most major metro areas have designated helicopter routes, even in and out of ORD for instance.

I get the EMS / MEDEVAC guys can have some increased intensity to take the shortest route to the patient, but the risks can procedurally still be mitigated. It will be interesting to see how this develops.
 
I flew helicopters for 26 years, in some of the busiest airspace on the planet, with never so much as a close call. While there is no doubt risk, this may be an overreaction. When complying with all published regulations and SOPs, the risk can be mitigated. Now if normalization of deviance ensues, sure that can be problematic. But that is not just limited to helicopters. Most major metro areas have designated helicopter routes, even in and out of ORD for instance.

I get the EMS / MEDEVAC guys can have some increased intensity to take the shortest route to the patient, but the risks can procedurally still be mitigated. It will be interesting to see how this develops.
i popped out of a cloud at like 1400 feet with a helicopter crossing final right in front, we would've collided had i popped out at 1300ft
 
The title is misleading because nothing the FAA has adopted changes a pilot’s see and avoid responsibility under VFR or IFR.

This flight rule remains: (b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft.

What the new policy does change the controllers responsibility and require them to maintain separation between helicopter and airplane traffic within C and B airspace. A bit baffling why some would see this as a bad policy.
 
Last edited:
The title is misleading because nothing the FAA has adopted changes a pilot’s see and avoid responsibility under VFR or IFR.

This flight rule remains: (b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft.

What the new policy does change the controllers responsibility and require them to maintain separation between helicopter and airplane traffic within C and B airspace. A bit baffling why some would see this as a bad policy.
Because it's not needed. It unnecessarily increases the load on ATC. How many crashes have we had in history because of the current rules, and what were the reasons for it?

Creating rules to fix non-existent problems, while creating other ones in the process, does not increase safety.

Have you flown in Bravo airspaces with multiple airports and helicopters? Now realize ATC is going to have to vector all the helicopters, too. It's a horrible waste of their attention & the radios were already full during peak times.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Potomac_River_mid-air_collision

Got a lot of publicity at the time - something had to be done. Something.
Yeah. The pilot needs to follow altitude rules. No ****.

You can't safety out a bad human/poor flying skills, with yet another rule. That pilot was already breaking multiple rules; you think 1 more would have made a difference?

Something was done for that one which makes sense; they eliminated a helicopter route that goes under a final approach. Problem solved.
 
The title is misleading because nothing the FAA has adopted changes a pilot’s see and avoid responsibility under VFR or IFR.

This flight rule remains: (b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft.

What the new policy does change the controllers responsibility and require them to maintain separation between helicopter and airplane traffic within C and B airspace. A bit baffling why some would see this as a bad policy.
Because there’s a reason why visual separation exists in the first place. It’s to create a more efficient system. Especially in high density airspace. Also, to restrict rotor vs
fixed wing but not rotor vs rotor or fixed wing vs fixed wing is absurd. Different aircraft performance and ability to maintain visual has nothing to do with crossing flight paths. It is critical for a higher performance aircraft following a slower one though. That wasn’t the situation with DCA.

This is about policy makers who are out of touch with the realities of trying to cram too many aircraft in a finite amount of airspace. I get it, something had to be done to satisfy the public but there are still numerous other scenarios around the country with an accident waiting to happen. This ruling is similar to when the FAA stopped doing opposite direction departures because of some close calls. Everyone started complaining about the increase in wait times / fuel so they slowly reimplemented it. You can try and policy out human error but it comes at an expense and ultimately never solves the real problem.
 
Because there’s a reason why visual separation exists in the first place. It’s to create a more efficient system. Especially in high density airspace. Also, to restrict rotor vs
fixed wing but not rotor vs rotor or fixed wing vs fixed wing is absurd. Different aircraft performance and ability to maintain visual has nothing to do with crossing flight paths. It is critical for a higher performance aircraft following a slower one though. That wasn’t the situation with DCA.

This is about policy makers who are out of touch with the realities of trying to cram too many aircraft in a finite amount of airspace. I get it, something had to be done to satisfy the public but there are still numerous other scenarios around the country with an accident waiting to happen. This ruling is similar to when the FAA stopped doing opposite direction departures because of some close calls. Everyone started complaining about the increase in wait times / fuel so they slowly reimplemented it. You can try and policy out human error but it comes at an expense and ultimately never solves the real problem.
Much like the atp requirements for FO seat at the airlines.

They did something to fix the problem…
 
Yeah. The pilot needs to follow altitude rules. No ****.

You can't safety out a bad human/poor flying skills, with yet another rule. That pilot was already breaking multiple rules; you think 1 more would have made a difference?

Something was done for that one which makes sense; they eliminated a helicopter route that goes under a final approach. Problem solved.
Yeah. The problem there was partly that the pilot didn't hold altitude, but the real problem was that they established a visual route that didn't include enough room for error.
 
Because there’s a reason why visual separation exists in the first place. It’s to create a more efficient system. Especially in high density airspace. Also, to restrict rotor vs
fixed wing but not rotor vs rotor or fixed wing vs fixed wing is absurd. Different aircraft performance and ability to maintain visual has nothing to do with crossing flight paths. It is critical for a higher performance aircraft following a slower one though. That wasn’t the situation with DCA.

This is about policy makers who are out of touch with the realities of trying to cram too many aircraft in a finite amount of airspace. I get it, something had to be done to satisfy the public but there are still numerous other scenarios around the country with an accident waiting to happen. This ruling is similar to when the FAA stopped doing opposite direction departures because of some close calls. Everyone started complaining about the increase in wait times / fuel so they slowly reimplemented it. You can try and policy out human error but it comes at an expense and ultimately never solves the real problem.
Easy peasy if this is the issue. helicopter 123AB, remain clear Class C/B.
 
Last edited:
How many crashes have we had in history because of the current rules...
Wrong way to look at it, imo. Let the pilot who has never misidentified an aircraft throw the first stone. I'd want to be able to decline being a potential consequence of somebody else's over-confidence. We should both agree we see each other for visual separation to happen.
 
Wrong way to look at it, imo. Let the pilot who has never misidentified an aircraft throw the first stone. I'd want to be able to decline being a potential consequence of somebody else's over-confidence. We should both agree we see each other for visual separation to happen.
Well, the Actuaries would disagree with you. That's exactly how rules are created normally.
 
The title is misleading because nothing the FAA has adopted changes a pilot’s see and avoid responsibility under VFR or IFR.

This flight rule remains: (b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft.

What the new policy does change the controllers responsibility and require them to maintain separation between helicopter and airplane traffic within C and B airspace. A bit baffling why some would see this as a bad policy.
TRSA’s also.
 
Any idea whether this will curtail the beloved Skyline transition up the Hudson through NY Bravo airspace? Hard to imagine that working without "see and avoid" calls for the massive helicopter traffic.
 
They did something in response to a problem. Whether anything was fixed or not is subject to discussion.
Not to derail this subject, but the 1500 hr law was another great example of setting a rule in search of a problem. That rule wouldn't have made any difference whatsoever in the crash that precipitated it, and while some of the positives that came (by shear accident) of higher pay at regionals, it also has the huge negative of creating pilot shortages overall, and raising the cost of entry into the career to an unattainable level for so many. Horrible rule that not only wasn't related to the crash that happened, but it didn't fix the problem that was presented at all. At least FAA wasn't to blame for that one; that was Congress putting their nose into safety where it doesn't belong.
 
as someone who's came within seconds of smashing into a helicopter i say YAY, still ****ed that thing flew right in front of us on final
 
Not to derail this subject, but the 1500 hr law was another great example of setting a rule in search of a problem. That rule wouldn't have made any difference whatsoever in the crash that precipitated it, and while some of the positives that came (by shear accident) of higher pay at regionals, it also has the huge negative of creating pilot shortages overall, and raising the cost of entry into the career to an unattainable level for so many.
I'm bored, I'll derail for a it:

On the bolded, not true. It's a good example in cope and conflating narratives however.

1) The safety canard behind FOs having the additional piece of paper is a debate that stands on its own demerits, but it's a red herring in the context of money, labor pool and costs. The complaint above is more about soft-handed tie-wearers who consider pedestrian work too much work for the money.

2) There is no airline pilot shortage, which is the only pilot market that matters to the market. Everything else is dismissively regarded as stepping stone throwaway jobs, or the repository for those with "skeletons" potato/whatever the eff that means that morning for HR. And the gross pay disparities across pilot jobs that follow accordingly. The highest paying pilot jobs aren't even the most dangerous nor the ones requiring the most non-transferable experience. That's why it's so attractive btw. BL, just because everybody can't get the job they want doesn't mean there's a shortage. This is a perversion of semantics by the entitled... and by the "shovel sellers" of course, to bring it back to 19th century grifter America.

There are thousands of 1500hr CFIs whining all over instagram and APC right meow to their influencer gods about not getting a 121 jerb like "they were promised". The Optimism-biased never owned a mirror it seems. These people would refill printer toners if it paid a nickle more for the same days off "promised". Many effectively did during the lost decade. There's just no staying power behind it. Of course, 3/4 of them would also manifestation-of-apprehension freeze/vomit if you had to demonstrate flight control dexterity under stress in all 3 dimensions before they let you into 121 shangri-La. But since I can't prove a negative, I'll have to digress.

3) The higher cost of entry for education is a result of that 2020 M2 Federal Reserve robber baron monetary policy that hit us all earned income class folks, airline pilot or not. It froze many of our lives in place, killed our hobbies, and/or postponed life milestones going on 6 years now. It's not some 1500 hours in a C-172/slowtation copout.

In short, more demand, not less, for the notion for making "easy money" as an FMS operator is the driver behind that so-called grievance. And before people get tribal up in here per usual, this isn't unique to aviation. Tis a dynamic not at all different than nursing licensure on the female-dominated side of the workforce, when they get pikachu face realizing all the jobs readily available are the high-turnover bedside burnout gigs. They're crying about nursing shortages over there too, and it's just as false as it is for aviation.

If regionals still paid pre-Colgan money, inflation would still rekt ya, because everything is +25% thru +100% from 2019 cost basis depending on the asset/commodity class. The children who thought an airline income progression was owed to them because their older brother got one in 2021 for less than 5 years time expended, are just finding out the industry has always been cyclical. womp womp. I bet you my bottom dollar you wouldn't hear the end of it if the FFD carriers still paid pre-colgan money. And heck at that point they'd actually have a bona fide argument for an actual pilot shortage, as these "aviation lovers" wouldn't set foot in a flight school for money they could double as doordash drivers or hospitality workers.

Remember also that hiring mins pre-colgan were way HIGHER than ATP mins, so your argument falls apart on just that alone. And they still lined up in droves for 20K/yr jobs. The CA who killed all those people over Buffalo actually paid 25K to work right seat for GIA. His qualified formative background before avation? Kicking pebbles for a living as a travel agent and cell phone salesman. I had to research that twice I thought it to be too on-the-nose. And you think ATP for airline right seaters is that injurious to the labor market? lulz. People should know their lanes in life, we make it too easy in this country to fake it, and bystanders die for the entitlement of others.


Now back to helicopters, another sector of aviation that ought to pay better and it's hella more dangerous.
 
Yeah that’ll work well with my job. I fly in and out of a hospital located in a Class C.
You mean your hospital is inside the inner area associated with Class C to the surface? If that is the case, you are why this change has occurred because you are within 5 miles of the primary airport.

If you flying a medivac, ATC is well acquainted with your operation and mission and going to keep you flying efficiently. . Quit the belly aching. If you are in the average Class C airspace, this change will rarely affect you.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top