US Senator Charles E. Schumer unveiled what he calls “a comprehensive plan to clear up the airspace over the Hudson River”. It is not expressed in aeronautical terms, but what he wants is basically turn the Hudson River Corridor into and IFR airspace.
Quoting this plan: “FAA does not regulate helicopter routes like those in New York City’s airspace, and instead relies on a “see and avoid” strategy for helicopters.” Yes, Mr. Senator, this is called Visual Flight Rules. Like in visually avoid obstacles and other aircraft.
Second point of the plan: “Schumer is calling on the FAA to monitor all flights, both helicopters and airplanes, below 1,000 feet and require aircraft to file flight plans. Currently, there is no comprehensive system in place regulating flights below 1,000 fee , leading many to believe that the Hudson crash was the just the beginning.” So what Mr. Senator ? You want flight plans, and positive control of all aircraft ? Do you mean… IFR ? By the way, who are these “many” who believe that this tragic accident was just the beginning ?
Another point of the plan: “Schumer is calling for new technologies to differentiate the type of alarm that goes off in the control towers when flights get too close together. There are so many flights at all times that alarms are often indistinguishable. The closer the planes are, the louder the alarm should be.” Reading such a thing, I wonder if Senator Schumer already visited any ATC facility. An alarm that is louder when the planes get closer ? What’s the purpose of a quite alarm ? Just tell the controller “there’s an alarm, but you must not care right now, it’s not LOUD enough ?” A system must either issue an alarm, or not. It must be smart enough to have a low rate of false alarms. Welcome in the world of Short Term Conflict Alerts (STCA). Nothing new here, but hardly applicable to VFR flights, which are not forcefully in contact with ATC.
Final point of the plan: “Schumer is calling on Congress to act quickly on FAA reauthorizing legislation, and in it they must adequately fund the deployment of NexGen technology to make air traffic controller operations safer and more efficient. This accident has demonstrated that handoffs between control towers and airports need to be smoother, and investment in technology will help this effort.” This is good, but has nothing to do with VFR and the Hudson River corridor. NexGen is based on ADS-B, and I doubt that all the VFR traffic there is equipped now, or will be in the near future.
There are only two ways to manage air traffic control. Give the responsibility for avoiding collisions to the Air Traffic Controller, and then have enough of them, together with appropriate flight data (flight plans, surveillance equipment, …). This is called IFR. Or you can leave the responsibility to the pilot. In this case, the basic principle is “see-and-avoid”, complemented by information from Air Traffic Controllers, where available and practical.
Senator Schumer also added: “While the cause of this terrible crash is still being investigated, virtually unregulated general aviation flight traffic over the Hudson River poses a serious safety and security risk to New Yorkers and the time for action is now.” I’m not sure which safety and security risk Senator Schumer is referring to. There were no victims on ground, and as tragic as this accident is, it does not call for fundamental changes.
There are certainly lessons to be learned from this accident, but this is a job for specialists like NTSB and FAA staff. Nothing political here.
Click here to read the exact details of the “plan”.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Thanks for pointing out that proposal. I just sent a blistering email to the Hon. Senator Schumer. “With all due respect…”, i.e., “none”.