Posted on 08/13/2009 5:34:12 PM PDT by Federalist Patriot
Here is raw video of the mid-air collision of a helicopter and a plane over the Hudson River last Saturday, August 8. It was taken by a tourist, and the home video has been aired by WNBC-TV in New York. Nine people perished in the collision. . . . . (Watch Video)
(Excerpt) Read more at freedomslighthouse.com ...
The video isn’t coming up. All I see is a small box with a red X in it.
OK, FR pilots, who is at fault?
Watching the collision a number of times, it’s hard to see how either one failed to see the proximity of the other. The plane just “appears” in the video (which is following the helicopter’s path), but the perspective implies it should have been in the helicopter’s perspective long before. and vice versa.
Video now plays fine in IE at Freedom’s Lighthouse link.
Anybody around here ever fly that area?
Personally, I am surprised the Helo operator would be using aircraft without a traffic avoidance system. They aren't fool proof, but they are really handy in dense traffic areas.
Bkmk
Unfortunately, it was too late, and it exposed the undercarriage of the plane to the rotors ... the helicopter's path was headed at a diagonal into the plane ... the plane seems to be on a slight climb.
I'd say the helicopter.
Unfortunately, it was too late, and it exposed the undercarriage of the plane to the rotors ... the helicopter's path was headed at a diagonal into the plane ... the plane seems to be on a slight climb.
I'd say the helicopter.
Look out the damn window...
Both pilots, and I dare say their passengers, are at fault for not seeing the collision coming...Say something....Loudly
Does that mean that the helicopter should have avoided the position "up and to the right" from the plane?
Good question ... I don’t know the evasive rule for rotor craft ... and too ... the ‘up and to the right’ move is for head ons.
The flip side is that an AS350 is probably climbing out at somewhere between 60 kts and 90 kts with the plane at it's 4 o'clock high.
My understanding is that there is a common traffic frequency that people are supposed to use. That allows pilots to report regular reporting points and for the helicopters to report when lifting. I cannot believe that the helicopter pilot wouldn't be up that freq. If he didn't hear any response while he was lifting then he probably thought the airspace was clear.
YouTube link...
Home Video Captures Hudson River Midair Collision Of Helicopter/Plane
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPKy35EFj4I
Most pilots spend their time looking ahead and to their right and left for traffic. It’s very difficult, even in a helicopter, to see an aircraft approaching from the angel those two struck. It’s much like the blind spot in your car on the Interstate.
There is very little right or wrong in VFR operations when it comes to seeing other aircraft. The rule is seen and be seen and that’s about it. There are some altitude rules but they apply mostly to aircraft flying in opposite directions, not two aircraft with one overtaking the other from a blind spot. The helicopter pilot would have to have taken his attention off traffic that might directly in his path and looked back an down to see the approaching fixed wing.
This is a toughie! When you have more than one aircraft in the same general area you have a potential midair collision. Some of them are simply unavoidable based on the type of aircraft and the angle they are closing. It’s even different for various types of fixed wing machines. A high wing monoplane, like the Cessna 172 has a very different field of vision from a low wing monoplane such as the Piper Archer. A biplane has a totally different field from either a high wing or low wing.
The rules for operating on the ground around a helicopter are an indication of how difficult it is for the pilot to see anything behind him, even if only at his 100 degree position. The rules for approaching a fixed wing on the ground and a helicopter on the ground are practically the opposite. You never approach a helicopter from behind, but always want to approach a fixed wing from behind.
The sad fact is that these types of accidents will always be a problem until someone comes up with an avoidance system that doesn’t require equipment in both aircraft.
This is a broad generalization and I would hasten to add the disclaimer that no advice or practice is foolproof in every situation.
I saw one report where another helicopter pilot advised the accident aircraft that there was someone approaching from behind. The pilot said he got no response from the other aircraft.
Two weeks ago I saw three airplanes in 3/4 mile echelon on each other all racing to one airport. It gets even worse when you have a ceiling and everybody gets compressed down to two VFR altitudes.
Well said, jw.
re: very happy to have TCAS
I’ve not flown with the comfort of that! Does it require that both aircraft have the system for it to work?
I remember years ago a device that could sense the presence of a strobe from a mile or so away. It looked for the frequency of the light from a strobe. It’s apparently different enough from other lights to make it pretty selective. I saw them being marketed for ultralights. Talk about a bunch of aircraft all doing their own thing!
One company had a strobe that was designed to be more visible to the systems that looked for strobes.
I have not seen anything on this in years or even heard about it. Could be that it was one of those inventions that looked better on paper than in reality!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.