Interesting....NTSB fails again?

[SkyHog]

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/100915ntsbhudson.html

In a rare move Sept. 14, members of the National Transportation Safety Board overruled the recommendation of their expert staff and cited the probable cause of the midair collision over the Hudson River on Aug. 8, 2009, as “the inherent limitations of the see-and-avoid concept, which made it difficult for the airplane pilot to see the helicopter until the final seconds before the collision.”

 

[flyersfan31]

Interesting. VERY interesting.

Does anyone know how often this sort of thing happens? The board overruling the investigators on probable cause?

 

[EppyGA]

Sounds a little like prep work to make a case for instituting new rules, though you can certainly make the case that the primary cause was see and avoid error. Kind of falls under **** happens.

 

[mikea]

Sounds a little like prep work to make a case for instituting new rules, though you can certainly make the case that the primary cause was see and avoid error. Kind of falls under **** happens.

Falls under the soon to be ADS-B (if not more) required.

Think: The huge purchase of full body scanners had to be made even if one wouldn't have caught the undiebomber, which the case was used for justification.

 

[mikea]

Sounds a little like prep work to make a case for instituting new rules, though you can certainly make the case that the primary cause was see and avoid error. Kind of falls under **** happens.

Falls under the soon to be ADS-B (if not more, like TCAS*) required.

Think: The huge purchase of full body scanners had to be made even if one wouldn't have caught the undiebomber, which the case was used for justification.


*We know how well TCAS does and will (not) work in airspace like in NYC.

 

[steingar]

Like it or not, they're basically right. The reason we pilots don't boink into each other on a more routine basis is that there are few of us and lots of sky.

 

[Everskyward]

Like it or not, they're basically right. The reason we pilots don't boink into each other on a more routine basis is that there are few of us and lots of sky.

Agree. See and avoid sounds good but there are definite limitations. I realized that even more when I started flying an airplane with TCAS.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Agree. See and avoid sounds good but there are definite limitations. I realized that even more when I started flying an airplane with TCAS.

Yeah. And when ATC points out traffic opposite direction 1000 above or below and you can never see them.

 

[EdFred]

Yeah. And when ATC points out traffic opposite direction 1000 above or below and you can never see them.

Especially when Cleveland Approach keeps saying "Bonanza at 9 o clock and 3 miles....2 miles...1 mile...1/2 mile..." and I finally see it pass from right to left.

Thanks Einstein.

 

[steingar]

My fear is that the FAA is going to see this as a major safety issue instead of what it is. The government can't always keep you safe, and **** happens. Just part of the risk of flying. And that risk is going to continue to decline with the pilot population.

 

[weilke]

The technical staff basically blamed the dead racoon and the full board decided that this was an actual accident and downgraded the yakking controller to a contributing factor. I dont think they are required to stick to the staff recommendation.

 

[RMCN172RG]

My fear is that the FAA is going to see this as a major safety issue instead of what it is. The government can't always keep you safe, and **** happens.

No, more regulation and larger government is the solution for eveything.

 

[rottydaddy]

The wording "limitations of the see-and-avoid concept" is unfortunate.

Granted, every form of collision avoidance has limitations, but there was a lot more to this accident than "they just couldn't see each other in time."

I'm not talking specifically about the controller's role, though, except to the extent that I see an imbalance in this accident between use of comms and onboard technology and good old-fashioned looking outside and visualizing the "big picture".

Like most aviation tragedies, I believe this one was the culmination of a series of small inadequacies in judgment, by all parties concerned.

Sadly, this accident will add fuel to the argument that we must have more rules and gadgets to protect us from ourselves, when in fact it was caused, IMHO, largely by a failure to make adequate use of the most basic collision-avoidance skills.

Every aircraft has blind spots, but in such a scenario you have to use every square inch of glass available, as much as possible. Beyond that, you have to really think about where you are (like, for example, entering a narrow VFR corridor directly across from a busy heliport), and think even more about what might be out there that you can't see.

 

[rottydaddy]

Yeah. And when ATC points out traffic opposite direction 1000 above or below and you can never see them.

Very true... I've been there. But more than once I've seen the traffic well before I got the alert when using FF (yes, even in daylight).

And I've also had my closest calls while within controlled airspace, with both aircraft operating as per ATC directions.
They are as likely to make a mistake as we are, after all. I can't dismiss the value of radar coverage or TCAS, but in the end, unless you see the other traffic before it's too late, none of that means squat.

 

[kkoran]

Especially when Cleveland Approach keeps saying "Bonanza at 9 o clock and 3 miles....2 miles...1 mile...1/2 mile..." and I finally see it pass from right to left.

Thanks Einstein.

What's your point?

 

[EdFred]

What's your point?

It was at my 4 o clock and never saw him till he crossed in front of me. Controller kept me looking for traffic on the wrong side. This was inside the Bravo. My near-blind passenger was of no use in looking for traffic out her side of the plane.

 

[steingar]

The wording "limitations of the see-and-avoid concept" is unfortunate.

I wholeheartedly disagree. In the case in question, an aircraft with limited upward visibility collided while ascending with an aircraft with limited downward visibility. Did they really have that good an opportunity to see each other? Moreover, a person can only look at one thing at a time, and all humans are distractible. See and avoid is an inadequate means of collision avoidance. If it wasn't we'd use it with cars, where oncoming traffic is far easier to spot.

Like I said, big sky, getting bigger all the time. It works too, you are far more likely to have an engine malfunction than run into anyone. Even in the busiest airspace in the world it took decades for a mid-air to happen.

 

[Bob Noel]

It was at my 4 o clock and never saw him till he crossed in front of me. Controller kept me looking for traffic on the wrong side. This was inside the Bravo. My near-blind passenger was of no use in looking for traffic out her side of the plane.

Early in my flying "career" I learned to also look the other way. If
a controller calls traffic at 3 o'clock, I also look at 9 o'clock. Sometimes
the controller catches his error, sometimes not.

 

[EdFred]

Even in the busiest airspace in the world it took decades for a mid-air to happen.

I ran the numbers on that once, and the accident rate was ridiculously small. Thw number of operations was in the millions before something happened. I will take those odds all day, every day.

 

[Everskyward]

I ran the numbers on that once, and the accident rate was ridiculously small. Thw number of operations was in the millions before something happened. I will take those odds all day, every day.

At least you admit it is, in large part, based on the odds and not necessarily on your lack of visual acuity or scanning technique. Of course you should look for other traffic but there are definite limitations.

 

[EdFred]

At least you admit it is, in large part, based on the odds and not necessarily on your lack of visual acuity or scanning technique. Of course you should look for other traffic but there are definite limitations.

It is and it isn't. But yeah, it is hard for me to look out for overtaking traffic that's directly behind me. Or someone climbing from underneath me.