# SCAPEGOATS!



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 15, 2009)

Controller bantering about dead cat before crash - Yahoo! News

The media continues to hammer this story about the Hudson River crash. In reality I can't see how the controller was responsible since he handed the traffic off to Newark and was no longer responsible for that traffic as it was out of his airspace. He could have been on the radio or chatting with a phone sex operator, it would not have made a difference.

People died, someone has to be blamed! Here comes the FAA!

Right from the article...

_"At 11:52 and 20 seconds, the controller instructed the plane to contact air traffic control at nearby Newark Liberty International Airport, which is part of the procedure for handing off oversight of the small plane."_

The FAA = The efficiency of the US Post Office combined with the compassion of the IRS.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Aug 15, 2009)

The FAA is as bad as the US Navy used to be (still is?) with regard to finding scapegoats!

TO


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 15, 2009)

So, the ATC was trying to alert the aicraft to the situation, but was not recieving any responses...

It's also up to the pilot to be aware of thier surroundings and to maintain radio contact.

Looks to me like it doesn't matter if the ATC was on the phone before this happened, or if they got a new paint job on thier car the day before, they're still going to try and nail them for the pilot error...


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 15, 2009)

I'm not familiar with how the VMC route works on the Hudson but if its anything like the published route for sightseeing aircraft here its an accident waiting to happen ,it was only after 2 helos collided with loss of life about 10 years ago that the FAA and Canadian MOT got together to publish the route and altitudes but still no one pays heed . Today alone an F16 and the CWH Lanc going in opposite directions with what looked like IMHO about 500ft verticle


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 15, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> I'm not familiar with how the VMC route works on the Hudson but if its anything like the published route for sightseeing aircraft here its an accident waiting to happen ,it was only after 2 helos collided with loss of life about 10 years ago that the FAA and Canadian MOT got together to publish the route and altitudes but still no one pays heed . Today alone an F16 and the CWH Lanc going in opposite directions with what looked like IMHO about 500ft verticle



There is no low level VFR corridor in that area of the Hudson. Basically the aircraft was cleared to take off from Teterboro and as he turned to the south east, the Teterboro controller told him - "Piper XXX, contact Newark Tower at 1XX.XX. Now you were a controller, and you tell me once you turn and aircraft loose who's responsibility is if for VFR navigation? As a matter of fact I believe that ATC is only required to give VFR separation as a courtesy, providing their work load allows it.

This is a very congested piece of sky and the utmost vigilance must be observed when flying there. The fact that the Piper never acknowledged that he was supposed to change frequencies to Newark tells me that pilot was distracted or had some other issue. The only fault I could see here is perhaps the controller not continuing to ensure that the Piper pilot knew he had to change frequencies. Perhaps this should be a mandatory "repeat back" as is waiting at the hold line. In either case the FAA is looking to hang someone and the sensationalism driven media is fueling the fire.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Aug 15, 2009)

Interesting, the pilot did not respond to the radio calls from the ATC. Unfortunately, I feel the media's just going to focus on this case, and nothing else about the crash. Reminds me of another incident. Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937 DHL Flight 611 mid-air collision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The ATC at the time was working two workstations at the same time, and the phonelines he was using were faulty.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 15, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> There is no low level VFR corridor in that area of the Hudson. Basically the aircraft was cleared to take off from Teterboro and as he turned to the south east, the Teterboro controller told him - "Piper XXX, contact Newark Tower at 1XX.XX. Now you were a controller, and you tell me once you turn and aircraft loose who's responsibility is if for VFR navigation? As a matter of fact I believe that ATC is only required to give VFR separation as a courtesy, providing their work load allows it.
> 
> This is a very congested piece of sky and the utmost vigilance must be observed when flying there. The fact that the Piper never acknowledged that he was supposed to change frequencies to Newark tells me that pilot was distracted or had some other issue. The only fault I could see here is perhaps the controller not continuing to ensure that the Piper pilot knew he had to change frequencies. Perhaps this should be a mandatory "repeat back" as is waiting at the hold line. In either case the FAA is looking to hang someone and the sensationalism driven media id fueling the fire.


I believe they are chastising the controller for making a personal call while on the board 

, in Toronto they work 2hrs on 2 off and would think that NYC would be the same if not less , they are probably thinking hes got 2 hours off to do personal stuff


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 15, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> I believe they are chastising the controller for making a personal call while on the board



I guess the latest is this really wasn't a personal call but an unnecessary call to report a dead cat on the premises.

Again, the Feds are really digging deep to hang this guy.


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 15, 2009)

Holy crap, even if they don't find enough to hang him with (and if he's innocent, frikkin quit houndin the guy!), the stigma of this incident is gonna follow him for a looooooooooong time.


----------



## ccheese (Aug 16, 2009)

Should be an interesting story to watch. Too bad an ATC guy has to pay because some pilot wasn't watching where he
was going. 

Charles


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 16, 2009)

My neighbor is a retired ATC. She said they should hang those two guys just out of principle.

One for using a cell phone while on duty.

The other for leaving the building without authorization.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 16, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> My neighbor is a retired ATC. She said they should hang those two guys just out of principle.
> 
> One for using a cell phone while on duty.
> 
> The other for leaving the building without authorization.



There is a definite disciplinary action warranted but neither one contributed to this accident. Bottom line the Piper was "handed off" to another controller - end of story.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 16, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> There is a definite disciplinary action warranted but neither one contributed to this accident. Bottom line the Piper was "handed off" to another controller - end of story.


Unless I hear differently the pilots are guilty particularly the chump in the Piper I fear though that this airspace will have to change to "controlled"


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 16, 2009)

Well, I'm curious as to how the Helo pilot was conducting his takeoff.

If he wasn't indicated on the two tower's radars, did he climb at a rapid rate and/or was he ascending at a steep incline?

Surely from the ground, he (the helo pilot) could look up and down the VFR corridor and check for traffic...and if the plane veered at the last few seconds before impact, that may indicate he (aircraft pilot) realized at the last moment that something was beneath. At level flight, the airplane pilot should have been able to see traffic that was relatively close ahead or even somewhat below at a greater distance.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 16, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> Unless I hear differently the pilots are guilty particularly the chump in the Piper I fear though that this airspace will have to change to "controlled"



Yes, or at least make a VFR coridor to seperate the helicopter operations from fixed wing aircraft.



GrauGeist said:


> Well, I'm curious as to how the Helo pilot was conducting his takeoff.
> 
> If he wasn't indicated on the two tower's radars, did he climb at a rapid rate and/or was he ascending at a steep incline?
> 
> Surely from the ground, he (the helo pilot) could look up and down the VFR corridor and check for traffic...and if the plane veered at the last few seconds before impact, that may indicate he (aircraft pilot) realized at the last moment that something was beneath. At level flight, the airplane pilot should have been able to see traffic that was relatively close ahead or even somewhat below at a greater distance.


A low wing aircraft does have a blind spot from below because of the wings. By in congested airspace like over the Hudson, it might have been a good idea to fly your heading while executing gentle banks scanning for traffic. At the same time I do know the A Star has no visibility from the rear so it was a matter of both pilots scanning and flying a course where the blind spots of their aircraft could be dealt with, obviously this didn't happen.


----------



## gumbyk (Aug 16, 2009)

Flyboyj, I'm not usre how it is up there, but here in NZ, change of frequency is a mandatory read-back of hte clearance, and unitl that happens, the hand-over isn't complete. So, the fixed-wing pilot was still under the control of teterboro, assuming htat these rules are consistent. Can anyone confirm this with the FAA rules?

Also, I heard that this corridor is uncontrolled, what was he changing to Newark tower for? Shouldn't he have been on the common frequency for the corridor?

But, still, the final responsibility for VFR 'see and avoid' rests on teh pilots of both aircraft. From the footage that I have seen, it looks to me like the helicopter was climbing and climbed into the Piper. I, personally doubt how effective 'S' turns would have been in helping the pilot of the Piper to see the A-Star.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 16, 2009)

gumbyk said:


> Flyboyj, I'm not usre how it is up there, but here in NZ, change of frequency is a mandatory read-back of hte clearance, and unitl that happens, the hand-over isn't complete. So, the fixed-wing pilot was still under the control of teterboro, assuming htat these rules are consistent. Can anyone confirm this with the FAA rules?


I tried to look around for this but cannot find anything on readback in this situation, but at the same time the Piper was out of Teterboro's airspace and no longer the controller's responsibility.


gumbyk said:


> Also, I heard that this corridor is uncontrolled, what was he changing to Newark tower for? Shouldn't he have been on the common frequency for the corridor?


No - there is actually no VFR corridor in this area and Newark's airspace does go over this area. It is likely that the Piper's flight path was entering Newark's airspace.


gumbyk said:


> But, still, the final responsibility for VFR 'see and avoid' rests on teh pilots of both aircraft. From the footage that I have seen, it looks to me like the helicopter was climbing and climbed into the Piper. I, personally doubt how effective 'S' turns would have been in helping the pilot of the Piper to see the A-Star.


Perhaps, the Piper would have had an opportunity to see the A Star had he approached the area in a slight bank eliminating part of the blind spot from the wing. I've done this when flying low wing Pipers and T-34s in and around the LA basin and it does work, however in this situation it going to be really hard to speculate.


----------



## gumbyk (Aug 16, 2009)

> No - there is actually no VFR corridor in this area and Newark's airspace does go over this area. It is likely that the Piper's flight path was entering Newark's airspace.



aah, that makes sense now.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 16, 2009)

I can't ever recall a demand for a readback on freq change on a VMC flight it was usually good bye have a nice trip. (and after releasing the foot pedal) please try and not interrupt the hearts game again


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 16, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> I can't ever recall a demand for a readback on freq change on a VMC flight it was usually good bye have a nice trip. (and after releasing the foot pedal) please try and not interrupt the hearts game again


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 17, 2009)

THE PLOT THICKENS!!!!!

_"The Piper pilot never contacted Newark, *but just before the collision he acknowledged the Teterboro controller's instruction to change radio frequencies.* The sequence of events raises the possibility the pilot's attention may have been focused on the radio so that he didn't see the helicopter."_

Controllers: NTSB report on Hudson collision wrong - Yahoo! News


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 17, 2009)

OMG!!

You've gotta be sh!tting me!

They're now trying to say that the pilot was distracted by the radio???


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 17, 2009)

Well it seems its the NTSB out for blood but the evidence is starting to show that the only thing they could hang on the controller was he made a phone call about a dead cat.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 17, 2009)

Aviation accidents that involve injury or death is by far one of the lowest of any mode of transportation in the U.S.

The NTSB needs to get ahold of itself and take it down a notch.

Just imagine if the FHA got thier panties in a wad everytime there was an auto accident using this same kind of "witch hunt" mentality...


----------



## gumbyk (Aug 17, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> Aviation accidents that involve injury or death is by far one of the lowest of any mode of transportation in the U.S.



GG, Are you sure about that? 
Given the amount of exposure (i.e. we spend a lot more time in a car that and aircraft) the statistics are a lot different. I haven't seen them, but I know that if you take exposure time into account, things change. There's lies, damned lies, and statistics



> They're now trying to say that the pilot was distracted by the radio???



It happens. You look down to change the frequency, or check the frequency in the publications, and when you look back up - things have changed. 

Personally, I think that this is just one of those things that hapens when you squeeze too many aircraft into too small an airspace. The big sky theory breaks down.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 17, 2009)

If we take the statistics into a daily accounting over a yearly period, yep.

For example, 2008 saw a total of 34,017 Motor vehicle fatalities
This breaks down to:
19,220 driver deaths
7,397 passenger deaths
72 deaths unattributed (meaning can't determine driver or passenger)

There were also:
5,290 mototcycle fatalities
4,378 pedestrian fatalities
716 bicycle fatalities

(_Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration_)

According to the NTSB, for 2008, aicraft fatalities (due to accidents) were as follows:
U.S. air carriers operating under 14 CFR 121 - Nonscheduled: 2
U.S. air carriers operating under 14 CFR 135 - On-Demand: 19
U.S. general aviation: 275
U.S. civil aviation: 296
Foreign registered aircraft in the U.S.: 4
Unregistered aircraft: 1
Total: 597

(_Source: National Transportation Safety Board_)

So it looks to me like it's deadlier to ride your bike than it is to fly in an airplane! 

(_By the way, the statistics are for the United States_)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 17, 2009)

gumbyk said:


> It happens. You look down to change the frequency, or check the frequency in the publications, and when you look back up - things have changed.
> 
> Personally, I think that this is just one of those things that hapens when you squeeze too many aircraft into too small an airspace. The big sky theory breaks down.



Agree 100%. Unfortunately there's a lot of "aviation politics" in that area - GA, Corps, tourist ops, and of course the airlines and no politician and the FAA wants to step on any one's toes, so this happens and they all try to blame the sole controller.


----------



## trackend (Aug 18, 2009)

It all sounds rather familiar in my industry (railroads) soon as anything happens its finger pointing time by the safety executive. I have sat on a couple of enquiries and you sit one side of the table on your own and 6 guys are the other with all the data, rules, regs diagrams etc firing questions its bloody hard to keep from being shot down on something.

I hope the ATC has a good union lawer to help him fight his corner if they decide it's going to be his neck on the block,
things like this show these guys earn every penny they get.


----------



## GaryMcL (Aug 18, 2009)

Regarding a read back requirement on a freq change, there's nothing in the FARs that I can find but I did find this in the AIM:

*AIM 4-2-3 Contact Procedures
d. Acknowledgment of Frequency Changes.
*
1. When advised by ATC to change frequencies, acknowledge the instruction. If you select the new frequency without an acknowledgment, the controller's workload is increased because there is no way of knowing whether you received the instruction or have had radio communications failure.

As previously quoted, the Piper pilot did acknowledge the change with Teterboro but never contacted Newark. 

Which leads to a couple of thoughts:

As reported in the AP story linked at Yahoo, the helo wasn't on radar until seven seconds after the handoff to Newark. So even if Teterboro saw it, he's out of contact with the Piper by the time he does (assuming he saw it immediately) and the Piper isn't yet in contact with Newark to get a conflict warning because he's not up yet on the new frequency. And during this time the Piper pilot has his head down making the frequency change.

I haven't seen a timeline that shows how much time there was between the handoff and the mid-air, but assuming that it was fairly short, say a minute or two, the Piper pilot probably got his head back up just in time to see the helo pop up in front of him.

Assuming the helo's departure point was ahead of the Piper when the helo lifted and that both aircraft were on roughly the same course (given the impact from behind) the Piper pilot may well not have been able to see the helo because it would be blocked by the nose of the Piper. Since it's unlikely (I think) that the helo was faster and overtook the Piper and popped up from behind and underneath it's more likely that the helo was always in front of the Piper and was hidden by its nose.

If that's the case then this was a case of bad timing - if either the helo or the Piper leaves a minute or two earlier or later or if the frequency change is a minute or two earlier or later there's either no conflict or there's an opportunity for the helo to pop up on radar so that one of the controllers can see it and call the conflict and get the pilots looking in the right spot or evading. Crowded sky and the inherent limitations of see-and-avoid in action.

With the ongoing recent war between NTSB and FAA (and now NATCA) I'm sure there'll be plenty of blame spread around, deserved or not, and some more regulation and/or restrictions on airspace needed or not.

Hope this makes sense; I had a long day today and it's late so I might have rambled a bit.

Gary


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 18, 2009)

Thanks for finding that in the AIM Gary - one of those things you remember seeing at one time or another.


----------



## <inmemory> (Aug 18, 2009)

Just read this today, should shed light on the situation:

_Federal safety officials Monday 08/17/2009 ejected the air traffic controllers union from the investigation of a midair collision over the Hudson River, after union leaders publicly demanded a retraction from investigators who had suggested an air traffic controller could have prevented the crash.

The National Transportation Safety Board, which said in a statement the union had violated the rules for third-party observers, did revise its statement on a point the union had disputed: The Teterboro Airport controller monitoring a small plane over the Hudson River on Aug. 8 could not see the approaching helicopter on his radar when he handed off control of the aircraft, instructing the pilot to switch frequencies and contact the Newark air control tower.

The NTSB typically invites groups to participate in investigations as third-party observers if they can provide technical expertise. The union will no longer participate in the investigation.

National Air Traffic Controllers Association president Patrick Forrey said he sought to persuade the NTSB to correct wording in a Friday report, which suggested the Teterboro controller failed to advise the Piper's pilot of aircraft "immediately ahead of the airplane, including the accident helicopter."

Forrey said Monday the Teterboro controller had no reason to warn the Piper about other aircraft visible on the radar scope, because its requested path - a climb to 3,500 feet - would have taken it away from those potential obstacles._


----------



## gumbyk (Aug 19, 2009)

And, the NTSB release the corrected statement anyway...



> According to preliminary data provided to the Safety Board by the Federal Aviation Administration, the controller cleared the accident airplane for departure at 11:48:30. The first radar target for the airplane was detected at 11:49:55, at about 300 feet. The controller initiated a non-business-related telephone conversation at 11:50:31. Prior to the Teterboro controller instructing the pilot to contact Newark Tower at 1152:20, there were several aircraft in the Hudson River Class B Exclusion Area in the vicinity of the airplane, some of which were potential traffic conflicts. These were detected by radar and displayed on the controller's scope in Teterboro tower. The Teterboro controller did not alert the airplane pilot to this traffic prior to instructing him to change his radio frequency and contact Newark. _The accident helicopter was not visible on the Teterboro controller's radar scope at 1152:20;_ it did appear on radar 7 seconds later - at approximately 400 feet.



SB-09-44


----------

