ATC and the dead cat

[KMEM]

I am sure some of you are tired of me sounding off about aviation and the mis-reporting by the media. However, I am equally sure that most of you have no source of accurate information regarding these issues.

 

Here we go again with Air Traffic Control being accused of not doing their duty regarding the collision of the fixed wing aircraft and the sight seeing helicopter. I try to never defend ATC or pilots or the system IF they are in the wrong. Here I see little wrong, at least, so far.

 

Aircraft, whether fixed wing or helicopters, flying along the Hudson River corridor are not under the control of ATC. Whatever ATC has to say is advisory in nature. Indeed, it is nice to have someone who is looking at a radar screen to mention or advise or even warn you of possible traffic that MIGHT be a potential conflict. However, each aircraft using this corridor is subject to see and avoid or being seen and avoided. That means that each pilot should have every light on his aircraft turned on; he should have his eye balls on a constant swivel looking for other aircraft; that he should avail himself of any additional help that might be available. That would include electronic warning devices that are available but not required. I hate to say it but there are no absolute guarantees available to any modern means of transport, with or without each and every technological device available or thought of.

 

Consider this. Have you ever been on the road and observed any driver talking on the phone? Do you think their entire attention is on their driving or the driving of those nearby? After all, they are in control of a 4-6,000 or more pound vehicle that is traveling at 60 or 70 or 80 MPH or more. And, they are merely inches away from you as you or they pass by. The fixed wing aircraft has a maximum weight of about 3,500 pounds and the helicopter less. The fixed wing aircraft has a cruise capability of around 140 MPH and the helicopter the same. I doubt that either one was going that fast. However, I can promise you that the pilot of both aircraft were NOT on a cell phone or doing any thing other than directing (piloting) their aircraft. I HAVE to wait upon the conclusion of the NTSB but I have to think this is nothing other than an accident in the very real and most conclusive definition of the word.

 

It is unfortunate that one of the truths of physics and physiology is that moving objects in a 3 dimension situation that are on a collison course have the appearance of not moving. In other words, if the fixed wing aircraft were moving a few MPH faster than the helicopter and on a collision course, the helicopter, if seen at all, would appear to NOT be moving relative to the fixed wing aircraft. If you see another aircraft moving, you are not presently on a collision course and very likely will not ever be. Therefore, it takes training and special attention to see and avoid. This is something available and used in all pilot training. However, it just accentuates the usefulness of any additional aids that might be available and makes it imperative to use everything available in a busy traffic area, such as the Hudson River corridor.

 

Thanks for reading.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[+ purplekow]

From what I have read, the heliocopter was not on the radar screen until after the controller on the phone passed the flight off. That the supervisor was not there, and that the air traffic controller was on the phone likely making dead pussy jokes may not have contributed to the accident but it sure makes the system look bad.

[KMEM]

PK-

 

Of course, you are correct that it always looks bad when someone is caught not doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. I am not defending the actions of the controller or the supervisor. I have had a few disagreements with ATC during my career when they did wrong things. I also have been guilty of minor variations from perfection. I don't mean for that to sound superior; aviation demands better efforts and is very unforgiving of serious errors. Suffice it to say I have never received the equivalent of a traffic ticket from the FAA.

 

However, my point in the post was to shed some light on the true nature of those flights. Neither one was being "controlled" by ATC. Both were on their own to fly in this corridor. You may be among those who think that every flight should be controlled from the ground. Welcome to Russia or Nazi Germany, if you do. The freedoms that we have fought so hard to preserve are being taken away on a daily basis and aviation is no exception. As a bona fide dinosaur, I am trying my best to stop this and to clue in anyone who wants to listen.

 

All ATC communications are recorded, therefore, while there is some levity from time to time, most controllers are careful not to make obscene, crude or vulgar remarks.

 

The exact explanation of passing the flight off in this case means the fixed wing aircraft had departed from a controlled airport, that is one with a control tower, namely TEB or Teterboro, NJ. When an aircraft reaches a geographical point where the tower either hands the aircraft off to a radar controller or sends him on his own (this case), the controller no longer communicates with the aircraft. That is normally about 5 miles from the controlled airport.

 

If the tower has a "repeater" radar scope, and most do, he may observe traffic and advise the departing aircraft of it. Generally, the tower controller is not "qualified" to "use" the radar in a strict FAA definition of such, but if he observes traffic, he is morally bound to say something or so I think. If you were walking down the sidewalk and saw a car about to run over a pedestrian, would you not warn the pedestrian even if you were not a traffic cop? Of course, you would. The aviation community, the FAA and the media obviously expect the same; the media just has so far not had the correct idea of how this works.

 

Thanks for reading and writing.

 

Best regards,

KMEM