Helicopter/Small Plane Down in Hudson

mikea said:
Betcha if they can they turn off or turn down alerts outside the Bravo. It would be nonstop otherwise.

What range would be appropriate? 2-3 mile separation would non-stop.

Maybe they only get alerts for transponder tracked aircraft with transponder codes other than 1200, ie. on FF or IFR flight plans.
Click to expand...

It's a trajectory projection analysis, as I understand it. And they got the alert for the two VFR aircraft in this incident... where they on FF with discreet codes, or squawking VFR?
 
TangoWhiskey said:
So... armchair flying. If you think a collision is imminent, would you stand a better chance of avoiding the collision with a vigorous push or pull of the yoke, rather than a turn?
Click to expand...
If you startle a bird mid-air, it will dive. Thousands of years of natural selection have made it a no-brainer for them.
 
mikea said:
ADS-B, too. That will have not prevented this so we need to push up making it mandatory.
Click to expand...

Actually, ADS-B *would* have prevented this... What makes you think it wouldn't? TAS would have prevented it as well. I didn't think TIS would have, but it sounds like both planes were in radar coverage - NY area folks, is there TIS coverage in the corridor?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Actually, ADS-B *would* have prevented this... What makes you think it wouldn't? TAS would have prevented it as well. I didn't think TIS would have, but it sounds like both planes were in radar coverage - NY area folks, is there TIS coverage in the corridor?
Click to expand...

How many alerts do you think you'd have in a corridor with 200+ flights a day with one the country's busiest Bravos overhead?

TPAS, TCAS, or ADS-B, the boy who cried wolf will be ignored.
 
mikea said:
How many alerts do you think you'd have in a corridor with 200+ flights a day with one the country's busiest Bravos overhead?

TPAS, TCAS, or ADS-B, the boy who cried wolf will be ignored.
Click to expand...

Disagree. 200+ flights a *day*. Call it 20 an hour. If they last 1/2 hour apiece (the tour heli that was involved in the accident was only supposed to fly 12 minutes) that means only 10 aircraft in the entire corridor at any given time. Since the good systems don't "cry wolf" unless there's an aircraft that's actually going to come very close to you, I don't think they'll be ignored... Especially when they mean "DEATH IMMINENT."
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Disagree. 200+ flights a *day*. Call it 20 an hour. If they last 1/2 hour apiece (the tour heli that was involved in the accident was only supposed to fly 12 minutes) that means only 10 aircraft in the entire corridor at any given time. Since the good systems don't "cry wolf" unless there's an aircraft that's actually going to come very close to you, I don't think they'll be ignored... Especially when they mean "DEATH IMMINENT."
Click to expand...

Every time I've been down the corridor there are more than 10 aircraft (fixed wing and helicopter) floating around somewhere. Once again, this is why I only fly it in the Class Bravo. N90's HAARP, NYACK, or NOBBI sectors usually have no problem giving you a clearance. Down the line, the Bravo above the corridor is largely why LGA and EWR TCA exist (besides the east river exclusion area).
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Actually, ADS-B *would* have prevented this... What makes you think it wouldn't? TAS would have prevented it as well. I didn't think TIS would have, but it sounds like both planes were in radar coverage - NY area folks, is there TIS coverage in the corridor?
Click to expand...


Possibly. It would have reduced the risk, but it is not, repeat, not
guarenteed to prevent midair collosions. For example, there are
CFITs that occur even when the aircraft is equipped with
operational TAWS equipment
 
I read this morning that it's been 45 years since the last mid-air in the Hudson corridor. I hope that statistic is given some credence / visibility in the current discussion to close the corridor.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
I read this morning that it's been 45 years since the last mid-air in the Hudson corridor. I hope that statistic is given some credence / visibility in the current discussion to close the corridor.
Click to expand...

Don't count on it.

Did anyone notice this ominous little tidbit in the Congressional letter?
We call on the FAA to take immediate action to provide greater oversight of small aircraft operations throughout the country, the New York region, and in particular, ....
Click to expand...

That could affect all of us.
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
Every time I've been down the corridor there are more than 10 aircraft (fixed wing and helicopter) floating around somewhere.
Click to expand...

But I bet the number of aircraft there at once is a lot closer to 10 than it is to 200.

Bob Noel said:
Possibly. It would have reduced the risk, but it is not, repeat, not
guarenteed to prevent midair collosions. For example, there are
CFITs that occur even when the aircraft is equipped with
operational TAWS equipment
Click to expand...

No technology will prevent anything if the pilot chooses to ignore it. I figured that the "pilot reacts properly" portion was implied. And if you look at the post I was responding to, that post stated that ADS-B "Would not" have prevented it, when chances are pretty great that it would have - Again, had the pilots reacted properly.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
They definitely know how to overdo regulation up there:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,539865,00.html
Click to expand...
ahem.
But yesterday, after The Post contacted the department, Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe announced that the ticket would be nixed.

"The agent used extremely poor judgment" and didn't properly enforce the rule, Benepe said.

The bumbling Parks enforcement patrol officer will be re-trained on rules and regulations and will be reassigned, he added.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top