Just because its legal, doesn't make it safe
05-31-2013, 08:06 PM
#1
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: N90-EWR
Posts: 91
Just because its legal, doesn't make it safe
I posted this on another aviation forum, but felt sharing here was appropiate.
One of the biggest concerns that I have always had as an air traffic controller with 2 decades+ worth of working at the NY Tracon is VFR aircraft floating around just a hair under the class bravo, and not talking to anyone. This last week alone I witnessed 3 different very close calls that thankfully didn't end in tragedy. This latest 3 incidents involved one aircraft going at 2900 right in front, and directly below a heavy A340 coming in for landing at EWR. Now, I realize that GA aircraft need to have a way to go in, and out of all the different airports in our area, but come on..... have some common sense, and know where you are flying. If you know you're going to fly under the final of one of the busiest International airports in the NE, don't do it 100 feet under the Bravo just "because its legal"
The 2 other incidents involved aircraft flying at 2000 right across the TEB ILS RWY 19 localizer at 6 to 7 miles out, so they were under the NY Bravo, and outside the TEB delta. Perfectly legal, yet if you ask the 2 arrivals that had the misfortune of being at 2000 on the localizer right in direct conflict with them, they'll tell a different story. One of the arrivals had to abort landing because the conflict happened just outside of TUGGZ (FAF), and the TCAS resolution advisory took him to 2500 (which btw resulted in an almost loss of separation with a EWR arrival at 3000 above).
I have no idea how we have avoided a real tragedy involving something like this up to this point, but I fear that someday fate will put 2 together. Why does it have to take an actual tragedy, and have blood spilled before potential safety hazards get fixed? An obvious solution would be to extend the Bravo airspace out another 5 miles or so, and maybe lower the floor to 1500, so that there is less of a chance to have those close calls with traffic on the ILS 19 loc, but still give the GA flying public a way in and out of the local airports.
When the Bravo was designed, they only considered the "big 3", and TEB, MMU final approach courses were left out of the equation. Even the EWR final has issues with that 3000 feet floor sometimes.
For those of you that fly in and out of this area, and are familiar with the airspace, how do you feel about this? have any of you ever experienced a close call with one of those 1200 VFR's while coming in for landing at EWR, TEB, MMU, CDW, LDJ, or N07? What do you think of expanding the Bravo a bit farther out, and lower? Does anyone have any other ideas that could fix this safety issue?
The 2 other incidents involved aircraft flying at 2000 right across the TEB ILS RWY 19 localizer at 6 to 7 miles out, so they were under the NY Bravo, and outside the TEB delta. Perfectly legal, yet if you ask the 2 arrivals that had the misfortune of being at 2000 on the localizer right in direct conflict with them, they'll tell a different story. One of the arrivals had to abort landing because the conflict happened just outside of TUGGZ (FAF), and the TCAS resolution advisory took him to 2500 (which btw resulted in an almost loss of separation with a EWR arrival at 3000 above).
I have no idea how we have avoided a real tragedy involving something like this up to this point, but I fear that someday fate will put 2 together. Why does it have to take an actual tragedy, and have blood spilled before potential safety hazards get fixed? An obvious solution would be to extend the Bravo airspace out another 5 miles or so, and maybe lower the floor to 1500, so that there is less of a chance to have those close calls with traffic on the ILS 19 loc, but still give the GA flying public a way in and out of the local airports.
When the Bravo was designed, they only considered the "big 3", and TEB, MMU final approach courses were left out of the equation. Even the EWR final has issues with that 3000 feet floor sometimes.
For those of you that fly in and out of this area, and are familiar with the airspace, how do you feel about this? have any of you ever experienced a close call with one of those 1200 VFR's while coming in for landing at EWR, TEB, MMU, CDW, LDJ, or N07? What do you think of expanding the Bravo a bit farther out, and lower? Does anyone have any other ideas that could fix this safety issue?
06-01-2013, 05:50 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Airspace gets redesigned. You should put your concerns, examples, and suggestions into some sort of 'white paper' and send it up the chain. People do listen. You just have to grab the right ear. If nothing else - if will make you feel better that you took action - whether acted on or not in the end.
06-01-2013, 06:00 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,091
Originally Posted by Ajax
Does anyone have any other ideas that could fix this safety issue?
The Tri-State area needs to stop exhausting their finances on asinine endeavors such as banning soda size and cough up the $$ to redesign and rebuild their aviation infrastructure to a 21st century standard.
06-01-2013, 06:40 AM
#4
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,289
Same in SOCAL, we're overdue due for another 121/91 midair...then things will change again.
The problem is AOPA, in addition to preserving reasonable access for all general aviation pilots (a worthy goal), they also enable the 5% who are real idiots.
The problem is AOPA, in addition to preserving reasonable access for all general aviation pilots (a worthy goal), they also enable the 5% who are real idiots.
06-01-2013, 07:09 AM
#5
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
Poor use of these sub-Bravo areas could be the subject of an AOPA safety video. They have made videos for other problem areas, such as the ADIZ around the Maryland 3. I doubt many of the flights are intentional- most are unaware of the trouble they are causing to the aircraft above.
06-01-2013, 08:29 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Same in SOCAL, we're overdue due for another 121/91 midair...then things will change again.
The problem is AOPA, in addition to preserving reasonable access for all general aviation pilots (a worthy goal), they also enable the 5% who are real idiots.
The problem is AOPA, in addition to preserving reasonable access for all general aviation pilots (a worthy goal), they also enable the 5% who are real idiots.
I do not believe that lowering the Bravo will help, yes it would give you a greater buffer, however it would concentrate all GA aircraft into a smaller window of usable altitudes.
I think the greatest issue is that most GA pilots are unaware that they are flying "in the way" of the traffic going into those larger airports, and this is only complicated by the fact that many times the larger airports are landing with tailwinds. For a GA pilot if the wind favors 01 they assume and plan on landing 01, not 19. So for the more aware GA pilot they may think they are doing the right thing navigating around the airspace so as to avoid flying through the final only to end up right in the middle of it.
Another, smaller, issue is that NY TRACON does not have a reputation (rightfully or not) as being friendly and helpful towards the very GA aircraft that are "getting in the way". As someone who has flown in and around the NY area doing 91, 135, and 121 operations for over a decade, I can tell you from experience that most GA pilots at the smaller airports do not bother requesting Flight Following as they have been denied one too many times. Flight Following can help in avoiding some of this issues as most of the pilots who request it will follow the directions you give them (i.e. altitude to fly under the Bravo, turns to avoid traffic or airport finals, etc.) Obviously, this is workload dependent and not always possible.
I think a good way to go about reducing the incidents of close calls would be through education. As stated before, AOPA does a lot in terms of education and training to enhance safety. Aside from a video that they can put out, it may be helpful to have a seminar in the local area (at LDJ, N07, etc.) done in conjunction with controllers from NY TRACON. Not sure how possible that would be, but it could go a long way in helping to reduce these incidents as pilots in the area would be more aware of the very issues you bring up, and have strategies on how to best navigate that congested airspace.
06-01-2013, 02:50 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 777 Captain in Training
Posts: 1,457
Originally Posted by Ajax
I posted this on another aviation forum, but felt sharing here was appropiate.
One of the biggest concerns that I have always had as an air traffic controller with 2 decades+ worth of working at the NY Tracon is VFR aircraft floating around just a hair under the class bravo, and not talking to anyone. This last week alone I witnessed 3 different very close calls that thankfully didn't end in tragedy. This latest 3 incidents involved one aircraft going at 2900 right in front, and directly below a heavy A340 coming in for landing at EWR. Now, I realize that GA aircraft need to have a way to go in, and out of all the different airports in our area, but come on..... have some common sense, and know where you are flying. If you know you're going to fly under the final of one of the busiest International airports in the NE, don't do it 100 feet under the Bravo just "because its legal"
The 2 other incidents involved aircraft flying at 2000 right across the TEB ILS RWY 19 localizer at 6 to 7 miles out, so they were under the NY Bravo, and outside the TEB delta. Perfectly legal, yet if you ask the 2 arrivals that had the misfortune of being at 2000 on the localizer right in direct conflict with them, they'll tell a different story. One of the arrivals had to abort landing because the conflict happened just outside of TUGGZ (FAF), and the TCAS resolution advisory took him to 2500 (which btw resulted in an almost loss of separation with a EWR arrival at 3000 above).
I have no idea how we have avoided a real tragedy involving something like this up to this point, but I fear that someday fate will put 2 together. Why does it have to take an actual tragedy, and have blood spilled before potential safety hazards get fixed? An obvious solution would be to extend the Bravo airspace out another 5 miles or so, and maybe lower the floor to 1500, so that there is less of a chance to have those close calls with traffic on the ILS 19 loc, but still give the GA flying public a way in and out of the local airports.
When the Bravo was designed, they only considered the "big 3", and TEB, MMU final approach courses were left out of the equation. Even the EWR final has issues with that 3000 feet floor sometimes.
For those of you that fly in and out of this area, and are familiar with the airspace, how do you feel about this? have any of you ever experienced a close call with one of those 1200 VFR's while coming in for landing at EWR, TEB, MMU, CDW, LDJ, or N07? What do you think of expanding the Bravo a bit farther out, and lower? Does anyone have any other ideas that could fix this safety issue?
The 2 other incidents involved aircraft flying at 2000 right across the TEB ILS RWY 19 localizer at 6 to 7 miles out, so they were under the NY Bravo, and outside the TEB delta. Perfectly legal, yet if you ask the 2 arrivals that had the misfortune of being at 2000 on the localizer right in direct conflict with them, they'll tell a different story. One of the arrivals had to abort landing because the conflict happened just outside of TUGGZ (FAF), and the TCAS resolution advisory took him to 2500 (which btw resulted in an almost loss of separation with a EWR arrival at 3000 above).
I have no idea how we have avoided a real tragedy involving something like this up to this point, but I fear that someday fate will put 2 together. Why does it have to take an actual tragedy, and have blood spilled before potential safety hazards get fixed? An obvious solution would be to extend the Bravo airspace out another 5 miles or so, and maybe lower the floor to 1500, so that there is less of a chance to have those close calls with traffic on the ILS 19 loc, but still give the GA flying public a way in and out of the local airports.
When the Bravo was designed, they only considered the "big 3", and TEB, MMU final approach courses were left out of the equation. Even the EWR final has issues with that 3000 feet floor sometimes.
For those of you that fly in and out of this area, and are familiar with the airspace, how do you feel about this? have any of you ever experienced a close call with one of those 1200 VFR's while coming in for landing at EWR, TEB, MMU, CDW, LDJ, or N07? What do you think of expanding the Bravo a bit farther out, and lower? Does anyone have any other ideas that could fix this safety issue?
06-01-2013, 04:08 PM
#9
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: N90-EWR
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by HIFLYR
Neither is forcing arrivals to shoot landings with a near max cross wind just so you can get in a few more arrivals, when there is a runway aligned with the wind! Happens in your area and Denver all the time.
The problem I identified happens whether you're landing into the wind, or not.
06-01-2013, 04:16 PM
#10
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: N90-EWR
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by NE_Pilot
That's a bit of a stretch to say the problem is AOPA. The 5% who are real idiots are the problem regardless of AOPA. If anything, AOPA is closer to being the solution than the problem, as they offer more training and education in regards to aviation safety than the FAA does.
I do not believe that lowering the Bravo will help, yes it would give you a greater buffer, however it would concentrate all GA aircraft into a smaller window of usable altitudes.
I think the greatest issue is that most GA pilots are unaware that they are flying "in the way" of the traffic going into those larger airports, and this is only complicated by the fact that many times the larger airports are landing with tailwinds. For a GA pilot if the wind favors 01 they assume and plan on landing 01, not 19. So for the more aware GA pilot they may think they are doing the right thing navigating around the airspace so as to avoid flying through the final only to end up right in the middle of it.
Another, smaller, issue is that NY TRACON does not have a reputation (rightfully or not) as being friendly and helpful towards the very GA aircraft that are "getting in the way". As someone who has flown in and around the NY area doing 91, 135, and 121 operations for over a decade, I can tell you from experience that most GA pilots at the smaller airports do not bother requesting Flight Following as they have been denied one too many times. Flight Following can help in avoiding some of this issues as most of the pilots who request it will follow the directions you give them (i.e. altitude to fly under the Bravo, turns to avoid traffic or airport finals, etc.) Obviously, this is workload dependent and not always possible.
I think a good way to go about reducing the incidents of close calls would be through education. As stated before, AOPA does a lot in terms of education and training to enhance safety. Aside from a video that they can put out, it may be helpful to have a seminar in the local area (at LDJ, N07, etc.) done in conjunction with controllers from NY TRACON. Not sure how possible that would be, but it could go a long way in helping to reduce these incidents as pilots in the area would be more aware of the very issues you bring up, and have strategies on how to best navigate that congested airspace.
I do not believe that lowering the Bravo will help, yes it would give you a greater buffer, however it would concentrate all GA aircraft into a smaller window of usable altitudes.
I think the greatest issue is that most GA pilots are unaware that they are flying "in the way" of the traffic going into those larger airports, and this is only complicated by the fact that many times the larger airports are landing with tailwinds. For a GA pilot if the wind favors 01 they assume and plan on landing 01, not 19. So for the more aware GA pilot they may think they are doing the right thing navigating around the airspace so as to avoid flying through the final only to end up right in the middle of it.
Another, smaller, issue is that NY TRACON does not have a reputation (rightfully or not) as being friendly and helpful towards the very GA aircraft that are "getting in the way". As someone who has flown in and around the NY area doing 91, 135, and 121 operations for over a decade, I can tell you from experience that most GA pilots at the smaller airports do not bother requesting Flight Following as they have been denied one too many times. Flight Following can help in avoiding some of this issues as most of the pilots who request it will follow the directions you give them (i.e. altitude to fly under the Bravo, turns to avoid traffic or airport finals, etc.) Obviously, this is workload dependent and not always possible.
I think a good way to go about reducing the incidents of close calls would be through education. As stated before, AOPA does a lot in terms of education and training to enhance safety. Aside from a video that they can put out, it may be helpful to have a seminar in the local area (at LDJ, N07, etc.) done in conjunction with controllers from NY TRACON. Not sure how possible that would be, but it could go a long way in helping to reduce these incidents as pilots in the area would be more aware of the very issues you bring up, and have strategies on how to best navigate that congested airspace.
As for the "reputation" we may have of not being "friendly and/or helpful" all I can say is that there is not a single instance that I can think of where I would not want to be talking to a VFR aircraft transitioning through my airspace at an altitude that will have an impact on my final approach course at any of the airports I serve. Most controllers I work with feel the same way. I have to be totally down the crapper with traffic to deny traffic advisories, because telling an aircraft "unable advisories" does not magically make him disappear off my scope.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lowtimer77
Regional
55
11-10-2008 06:10 PM
