FAA Announces Practical Plan to Enhance Safety in New York A

scooter2525

Very well Member
September 3, 2009 — The FAA announced Wednesday a plan to revise flight procedures over the Hudson River to create “safe, dedicated operating corridors” for all the aircraft that fly at lower altitudes around Manhattan. The action, based on findings by the New York Airspace Task Force, a working group representing a cross-section of aviation stakeholders, of is in response to the crash in early August between a sightseeing helicopter and a Piper PA32 that claimed nine lives.
“These steps will significantly enhance safety in this busy area and create crystal-clear rules for all of the pilots who operate there,” said FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt. The FAA stated it did not use the NTSB recommendations put forth on August 27, but claims its proposed actions meet or exceed the NTSB's recommendations.
The safety enhancements would restructure the airspace, mandate pilot operating rules, create a new entry point into the Hudson River airspace from Teterboro, standardize New York area charts, and develop new training for pilots, air traffic controllers, and businesses that operate helicopters and aircraft in the area.
On Wednesday EAA and AOPA held a briefing on Capitol Hill with House aviation subcommittee staff members regarding the FAA’s proposed changes. “These are safety-driven recommendations, not politically driven,” said Doug Macnair. “The GA community embraces the working group and FAA’s recommendations in their entirety. This is not a menu of options, but rather a group of solutions that taken holistically make flying in this area significantly safer and more efficient.”
One of the most significant changes, if adopted, would divide the airspace into altitude corridors that separate aircraft flying over the river from those operating to and from local heliports or seaplane bases.
Specifically, this new exclusionary zone would be comprised of three components:

  • Establish a uniform “floor” for the Class B airspace over the Hudson River at 1,300 feet, which would also serve as the “ceiling” for the exclusionary zone.
  • Between 1,300-2,000 feet - aircraft would be required to operate in the Class B airspace under VFR but under positive air traffic control, communicating on the appropriate air traffic frequency.
  • Between 1,000-1,300 feet, aircraft using VFR required to use a common radio frequency for the Hudson River. Aircraft operating below 1,000 feet would use the same radio frequency.
In addition, new pilot operating practices would require pilots to use specific radio frequencies for the Hudson River and the East River; would set speeds at 140 knots or less; and would require pilots to turn on anti-collision devices, position or navigation equipment and landing lights. Pilots would also be required to announce when they enter the area and to report their aircraft description, location, direction, and altitude.
Existing common practices that take pilots along the west shore of the river when they are southbound and along the east shore when they are northbound would become mandatory. Pilots would also be required to have charts available and to be familiar with the airspace rules.
The FAA also intends to propose standardized procedures for fixed-wing aircraft leaving Teterboro to enter the Class B airspace over the Hudson River or the exclusionary zone. If an aircraft plans to enter the Class B airspace, Teterboro controllers would request approval from Newark before the aircraft takes off and be authorized to climb the aircraft to 1,500 feet. Aircraft that want to enter the VFR exclusionary zone would be directed by a special route over the George Washington Bridge.
The FAA expects to complete and publish any changes in time to have them in effect by November 19, so that they can be incorporated on new, standardized aeronautical charts. Those new charts will highlight the Class B VFR corridor, encouraging more pilots to exercise the option to fly over the Hudson River under air traffic control, instead of entering the congested exclusionary zone.
Finally, the FAA intends to develop training programs specifically tailored for pilots, air traffic controllers, and fixed-base operators to increase awareness of the options available in the Hudson River airspace, and better develop plans that enhance safety for the intended flight.
“We have reinforced how important it is to follow the recommended procedures and maintain professional conduct until we put the new mandatory measures in place,’’ Babbitt said. “These new safety steps incorporate the collective experience of pilots who fly in that airspace as well as our own air traffic controllers and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. We all want the skies over New York to be as safe as they can be.”
Some members of Congress have demanded closure of the VFR flyway in New York while others have called for new equipment requirements for aircraft transiting or operating in the airspace around Manhattan. The New York Airspace working group carefully examined these proposals and found that each would either not improve safety or could in fact have the opposite effect.
“EAA is working hard to communicate with key decision makers on the Hill and help them understand why the recommendations proposed by the airspace working group and subsequently adopted by the FAA are the right way to go to improve safety in the airspace above the Hudson River and elsewhere around Manhattan,” Macnair said. “The recommendations are not based on ulterior motives such as business considerations, noise issues, or any other politically motivated matters, but rather, go straight to the heart of operational safety considerations involving airspace design, air traffic and communications procedures, pilot education, operating rules and charting.
“We strongly believe that full implementation of these recommendations by FAA and the aviation community at large will have a positive impact on aviation safety in the New York metropolitan area.”
http://www.eaa.org/news/2009/2009-09-03_airspace.asp
 
Re: FAA Announces Practical Plan to Enhance Safety in New Yo

Ugh...at least they aren't shutting it down.
 
Re: FAA Announces Practical Plan to Enhance Safety in New Yo

Sounds like a mess, but a necessary mess.
 
Re: FAA Announces Practical Plan to Enhance Safety in New Yo

Well, we've seen how well that works now haven't we?

Seems NYC wants an improvement, doesn't sound like it's too terrible to provide some. Whether I think it's necessary or not, well, doesn't matter. I don't ever expect to fly down the Hudson VFR, nor do I ever plan on owning an airplane in the NY Terminal area where I might have to deal with this. It'd be interesting to hear what those who use the corridor regularly have to say. See-and-Avoid worked, and I'm sure this incident wasn't the first time two flying craft got too close, just so happened they touched this time.

How many times have you flown up and down the Hudson? (Full disclosure - I haven't.)

Just wondering since your profile lists FDK, being at about 180 miles from NYC, just wondering if you have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
 
Re: FAA Announces Practical Plan to Enhance Safety in New Yo

Well, we've seen how well that works now haven't we?

Seems NYC wants an improvement, doesn't sound like it's too terrible to provide some. Whether I think it's necessary or not, well, doesn't matter. I don't ever expect to fly down the Hudson VFR, nor do I ever plan on owning an airplane in the NY Terminal area where I might have to deal with this. It'd be interesting to hear what those who use the corridor regularly have to say. Sea-and-Avoid worked, and I'm sure this incident wasn't the first time two flying craft got too close, just so happened they touched this time.

How many times have you flown up and down the Hudson? (Full disclosure - I haven't.)

Just wondering since your profile lists FDK, being at about 180 miles from NYC, just wondering if you have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

I also live near FDK and I fly with my students up to NY all the time. I do the Hudson Tour maybe once a month, The changes arent all that different than the way its already being done.

A lot of pilots already do the Hudson tour up in the bravo anyways. A lot of others, like myself preffer to do it below the bravo. I am happy that they are giving us "non bravo" pilots another 200ft to breath.

It will make NYC feel safe but in essence, it wont change much for us pilots.
 
Re: FAA Announces Practical Plan to Enhance Safety in New Yo

subtle sully joke?

I got my Sperry's on. . .damn dreaming about getting on the water.

;) Good eye though, nice Sully reference.

I also live near FDK and I fly with my students up to NY all the time. I do the Hudson Tour maybe once a month, The changes arent all that different than the way its already being done.

A lot of pilots already do the Hudson tour up in the bravo anyways. A lot of others, like myself preffer to do it below the bravo. I am happy that they are giving us "non bravo" pilots another 200ft to breath.

It will make NYC feel safe but in essence, it wont change much for us pilots.

Okay, excellent. Thanks.
 
Re: FAA Announces Practical Plan to Enhance Safety in New Yo

Well, we've seen how well that works now haven't we?

Seems NYC wants an improvement, doesn't sound like it's too terrible to provide some. Whether I think it's necessary or not, well, doesn't matter. I don't ever expect to fly down the Hudson VFR, nor do I ever plan on owning an airplane in the NY Terminal area where I might have to deal with this. It'd be interesting to hear what those who use the corridor regularly have to say. Sea-and-Avoid worked, and I'm sure this incident wasn't the first time two flying craft got too close, just so happened they touched this time.

How many times have you flown up and down the Hudson? (Full disclosure - I haven't.)

Just wondering since your profile lists FDK, being at about 180 miles from NYC, just wondering if you have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

I have flown the corridor, only once but I have flown it. I made sure to know the CTAF & reporting points and reviewed all airspace before flying the flight.

It sucks that 9 died but that is no reason to mess w/ uncontrolled airspace and try and make it a pseudo-controlled mess.

5 years ago a mid-air killed 4 over the Akron VOR near Cleveland, should they shut that VOR down to VFR traffic? VOR's are 100x more dangerous in terms of mid-air possibilities then a corridor will ever be. For example, the Akron VOR in Ohio or the Joliet VOR in Chicago or the Westminster VOR in the Baltimore/DC Area. These VOR's are IAF's for multiple IAP's and have more people practicing APP's and Holds without talking to anybody then flight following/IFR combined.
 
Re: FAA Announces Practical Plan to Enhance Safety in New Yo

I have flown the corridor, only once but I have flown it. I made sure to know the CTAF & reporting points and reviewed all airspace before flying the flight.

It sucks that 9 died but that is no reason to mess w/ uncontrolled airspace and try and make it a pseudo-controlled mess.

5 years ago a mid-air killed 4 over the Akron VOR near Cleveland, should they shut that VOR down to VFR traffic? VOR's are 100x more dangerous in terms of mid-air possibilities then a corridor will ever be. For example, the Akron VOR in Ohio or the Joliet VOR in Chicago or the Westminster VOR in the Baltimore/DC Area. These VOR's are IAF's for multiple IAP's and have more people practicing APP's and Holds without talking to anybody then flight following/IFR combined.

Ditto!

Number of close calls I have had on the Hudson tours that I have done: 0

Number of close calls over Wesminister VOR: 2 (one was during a checkride, I spotted the Cheyenne before the examiner did!)
 
Re: FAA Announces Practical Plan to Enhance Safety in New Yo

5 years ago a mid-air killed 4 over the Akron VOR near Cleveland, should they shut that VOR down to VFR traffic? VOR's are 100x more dangerous in terms of mid-air possibilities then a corridor will ever be. For example, the Akron VOR in Ohio or the Joliet VOR in Chicago or the Westminster VOR in the Baltimore/DC Area. These VOR's are IAF's for multiple IAP's and have more people practicing APP's and Holds without talking to anybody then flight following/IFR combined.

While I might agree that VOR and converging airways are in theory more dangerous, I wouldn't mind seeing the numbers of mid-airs between GA aircraft within a 5nm radius of a VOR that was the converging point of two or more airways or as an IAF vs. the number of simple VFR mid-air related incidents away from any defined airway structure.

At least, in theory, traditionally we have been taught to have a higher sense of awareness when crossing a VOR that has converging airways, than when - say - in a VFR environment where there is no perceived path with which other planes are regularly operating.

The reality is that there are going to mid-air accidents. Even with See-and-avoid, pilots will still lose their situational awareness or forget to look away from the instruments for a split second, and it's too late.

I, largely, believe this latest move in the NY Terminal area is not necessarily to prevent future mid-airs (perhaps), but really to have some definite accountability when the next one happens.
 
Re: FAA Announces Practical Plan to Enhance Safety in New Yo

I, largely, believe this latest move in the NY Terminal area is not necessarily to prevent future mid-airs (perhaps), but really to have some definite accountability when the next one happens.

As said before, I, largely believe that this latest move has nothing to due with the pilot's and pax in the aircraft in the corridor but instead Joe Smoe watching the 8 o' clock news wondering why those two airplanes weren't talking to a control tower. How dangerous.
 
Back
Top