Inproving bravo airspace in light of the Hudson river midair.

For other comments I refer you to the AG 13th '09 edition of FLYING eNEWSLETTER.

Specifically see Left Seat comments by McClellan comparing arriving or departing Air Venture to flying the Hudson VFR corridor and the article entitled

"Hudson Disaster Reveals What Non-PIlots Don't Get About Flying"

which states in part "Should airplanes flying the Hudson Corridor be under positive control, as is required inside the Class B Airspace? It would be possible, of course, with the addition of millions of dollars worth of equipment and more controllers to handle the job of controlling these aircraft flying the corridor. But the truth is, it would probably not cut down on mid-air collisions, because there are hardly any mid-air collisions on the Hudson Corridor to begin with."

Lets not get carried away trying with finding a way to close VFR corridors..  A VFR corridor through the middle of class B airspace is no more dangerous than an uncontrolled airport..  This incident was tragic but it was pilot error and not the fault of the airspace.. As the PIC one must remember what we are there to do and that is to fly the aircraft and watch for traffic not sight seeing... I have traveled this same route many times before as literally thousands of other pilot have before me without incident.. Face it, VFR collision avoidance must be done from the cockpit not from the tower or ARTC.

Doug Turner

CFI

The tools are already here for many of us. The FAA has TIS (Traffic Information Service), which displays on your Garmin 430, 530, 396,496,696 etc... All you need is a Mode S transponder. I use this setup all around Chicagoland and  see all the traffic, well before my eyes would see them.

Its a shame the FAA has decided to stop funding TIS in the long term and make us all go to some very expensive alternative.

I must agree with Doug Turner who stated " A VFR corridor through the middle of class B airspace is no more dangerous than an uncontrolled airport..  This incident was tragic but it was pilot error and not the fault of the airspace.. As the PIC one must remember what we are there to do and that is to fly the aircraft and watch for traffic not sight seeing..."

I have also traveled this corridor often and the accident was not the fault of regulations.  The accident was just that; an accident.  It was caused by pilot error on behalf of both pilots.  Either could have prevented the collision.  You can not legislate or regulate pilot error.  I've traveled the NY VFR corridor for over 30 years and this collision is the first such accident that I can recall.

As has become customary, I anticipate an over reaction to this event.  If you require additional aircraft equipment here, then I guess it's only logical that we must require it at every uncontrolled airport that gets busy at times.

Jim Simmons

Good comment Bob,

We all know that the FAA TIS system is on the way out and has many limitations. But even so, if requiring Mode S in Bravo would have saved these nine lives, then it would have been worth it.

An indepth discussion of the FAA TIS system is of course,not the subject of this topic, but it is one potential solution that might have decreased the risks taken by those in this accident.

Making the system safer is our goal and that of course involves making safer pilots along with trying to improve the system.

Many would say this accident was unavoidable (an act of God) or just pilot error as we know most accidents have a thread tied to. My goal in this topic discussion is to come up with ideas on how to make the system better. It involves making pilots better, but it also involves taking a hard look at the system and that is my goal for the discussion.

Thanks again for your comment Bob

Good comment Bob,

We all know that the FAA TIS system is on the way out and has many limitations. But even so, if requiring Mode S in Bravo would have saved these nine lives, then it would have been worth it.

An indepth discussion of the FAA TIS system is of course,not the subject of this topic, but it is one potential solution that might have decreased the risks taken by those in this accident.

Making the system safer is our goal and that of course involves making safer pilots along with trying to improve the system.

Many would say this accident was unavoidable (an act of God) or just pilot error as we know most accidents have a thread tied to. My goal in this topic discussion is to come up with ideas on how to make the system better. It involves making pilots better, but it also involves taking a hard look at the system and that is my goal for the discussion.

Doug,

Thanks for your comments. In no way do I want to be involved in finding ways to close VFR corridors in Bravo airspace. I am a proponent of them!

I do feel that comparing VFR corridors in Bravo airspace to non towered (vs. uncontrolled) airport traffic patterns is not valid. Bravo airspace is by definition busy and requires much more training and preparation prior to entry as I’m sure you know.

As for the cause of the accident, I will leave that up to the NTSB.

Your point on the primary job of the pilot being to fly the aircraft and look for other aircraft is a great point and very valid. We can all get distracted when we should not.

Collision avoidance must be done from the cockpit, but help with traffic alerts from either an avionics system or from ATC sure couldn’t hurt in a busy environment like a Bravo veil.

Don

Jim,

Thanks for your comments.

I agree you cannot legislate or regulate pilot error, but we can do a better job at flight instruction and we can look at ways to improve the system.

As for over reaction, events like these significantly influence the future of GA as I’m sure you agree. We must look at solutions to reducing all accidents, and put special emphasis on high profile one’s like this. I feel we aviators must all be proactive and innovative. There might not be an easy solution to make even a little improvement, but if we don’t try then we will lose.

As for requiring additional aircraft equipment in a Bravo veil, I am certainly not a proponent of requiring costly equipment, but many innovations do not have to be as costly as a lot of them end up.

Again flight in a Class B veil cannot be compared to flight in non-towered (not uncontrolled) airports. Bravo requires much more training and flight preparations.

Don

I just received an email from Bob Miller on this subject. If you are interested, you can get on his email list via the below URL.

He states that the trend will be to to eliminate, curtail, or restrict VFR corridor operations and we know this is right on.

We certainly don't want to be a part of any of that. The more acceptable of these three words is restrict. Hopefully even that one can be avoided by innovation by the GA community. There are probably some equipment solutions that could be developed that would not change our freedom in this country that is so important and that is being lost in all areas both within and outside of aviation.  Our freedom is one of our greatest strengths in this country and our freedom through aviation is near the top of the list.

Even without more traffic info. in the cockpit,  we can improve Bravo training and I refer you to an excerpt from Bob's email.

Hopefully more instructors will offer good Bravo training such as this. I know some others do.

Excerpt follows:

As OTA readers know, I include the Hudson River VFR corridor in our NYC TRACON airport training flights (LaGuardia, JFK, Newark, and Teterboro).  For details, click on the following link:  

Don

One problem with these topic threads is that they get too long and so I am going to terminate my input on this subject with this summary unless someone comes along with a great addition.

Some of the best comments on the subject have been that 

1.  There is no substitute for seeing (good scanning) and be seen when VFR or for that matter when IFR and not IMC. 

2. That said there will be blind spots and distractions.

3. Know your airspace - Preplan.  A handout I picked out at Air Venture (from www.FlyThePattern.com)

    has the  motto is "Eye it before you Fly it"

4. That said more traffic advisories is always good, whether from ATC or from in cockpit sources.

5. We can prevent accidents by good training, good planning, and caring enough to want to make the system better.

We can prevent accidents in Bravo if we operate with the above in mind. Let the NTSB, FAA, EAA,  AOPA and all involved (including the public) make the right conclusions with our informed input. Be assured, our input is needed. We the People (as the individuals that we are) can make a difference. We don't need a party platform, just our experience and input from each other. Be assured that government or organizations will never solve all our problems. We need to get involved.

Safe Flights,

Don