The new Hudson River corridor

Ron Levy said:
Other than the price of a NY Terminal Area Chart, what's the cost?
Click to expand...

I may be wrong about this, but as I read it you now need an electrical system to fly the Corridor. (radio, lights required). Before you could do this NORDO on a waiver. I am not sure if that is still true or not.

-Skip
 
TMetzinger said:
Uhhhh... the TAC gets revised same as the sectional.
Click to expand...
That is correct. The Helicopter Route Chart does not. I have what I believe to be a current helo chart and it still shows the graphic of the twin towers....

-Skip
 
Skip Miller said:
I may be wrong about this, but as I read it you now need an electrical system to fly the Corridor. (radio, lights required). Before you could do this NORDO on a waiver. I am not sure if that is still true or not.

-Skip
Click to expand...
If you don't have lights, then you don't need to turn them on. :smile: If you do, then you must. Hubby and I disagree on whether they stated the same about a transponder, so I leave it to you to find it out.

However, you MUST have a radio whether the aircraft is equipped or not. Your handheld will be sufficient.
 
TMetzinger said:
Nice summary, Peggy. I'm flying up there on Saturday wx permitting. It will be interesting to see how often folks get denied the Class B Skyline Route.
Click to expand...

I have never been denied a Bravo transition through the Hudson as long as there wasn't a stadium TFR. Of course now it has a fancy VFR corridor name, "Skyline" but that shouldn't change anything. N90 will continue to do business the same as usual.

I wonder if the media or Chuck Schumer will figure out that there is actually less positively controlled airspace given these revised rules (Class B shelf goes from 1,100 to 1,300). Yeah, you are required to report and turn your lights on, but now you don't need a bravo clearance at 1,200 feet whereas you did before these new rules.
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
I have never been denied a Bravo transition through the Hudson as long as there wasn't a stadium TFR. Of course now it has a fancy VFR corridor name, "Skyline" but that shouldn't change anything. N90 will continue to do business the same as usual.

I wonder if the media or Chuck Schumer will figure out that there is actually less positively controlled airspace given these revised rules (Class B shelf goes from 1,100 to 1,300). Yeah, you are required to report and turn your lights on, but now you don't need a bravo clearance at 1,200 feet whereas you did before these new rules.
Click to expand...


SSSHHH!

Seriously, I think the "transit" and "local" segmentation is a good idea.
 
Last edited:
The "lights on" requirement presents an interesting question for me. I have a landing light, but it's on the nose gear. So, to have it on and useful, I have to extend the landing gear. I'm not going to do that, so I just leave it off.

I suppose for most planes it's a non-issue, though, since your average plane has a landing light not on the nose gear.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The "lights on" requirement presents an interesting question for me. I have a landing light, but it's on the nose gear. So, to have it on and useful, I have to extend the landing gear. I'm not going to do that, so I just leave it off.

I suppose for most planes it's a non-issue, though, since your average plane has a landing light not on the nose gear.
Click to expand...

You could always turn on the landing light without extending the gear... but it wouldn't be very effective.
 
Last edited:
Turn on the landing gear? There seems to be something wrong with that sentence.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Actually, if these rules had been in effect, since the airplane was in contact with ATC, he would have been in the Skyline Route between 1300' and 2000'. The helicopter would have been in the local area, below 1000'. They would have missed each other by 300'.
Click to expand...
But that sort of routing and ATC handling was already available, technically speaking. They offered it, and he opted for the VFR corridor instead. With the new rules, it could well happen again.

But that sort of expectation- to be controlled on a "Hudson Scenic", albeit at a higher altitude- may have prevented the apparent confusion in that case; I'll grant that. And if this controlled corridor became widely used, it might become the primary option for, say, a flight leaving KTEB and taking the river route to the south. And it could very well keep the local tour helicopters below the majority of fixed-wing traffic, as they won't want to hassle with getting a clearance. I've personally never seen them above 700 feet or so when I've flown through there; the decision of the helicopter pilot to climb higher was definitely a factor in that crash, even though I wouldn't say he was "out of line" in doing so.

But below this Skyline Route, it could happen again... not because of poorly-structured airspaces or lack of ATC clearance requirements, traffic alerts or vectoring/assigned altitudes, but because pilots might still fail to see and avoid. That's basically what happened, and it could happen anywhere, even in controlled airspace.
 
rottydaddy said:
But that sort of routing and ATC handling was already available, technically speaking. They offered it, and he opted for the VFR corridor instead. With the new rules, it could well happen again.

But that sort of expectation- to be controlled on a "Hudson Scenic", albeit at a higher altitude- may have prevented the apparent confusion in that case; I'll grant that. And if this controlled corridor became widely used, it might become the primary option for, say, a flight leaving KTEB and taking the river route to the south. And it could very well keep the local tour helicopters below the majority of fixed-wing traffic, as they won't want to hassle with getting a clearance. I've personally never seen them above 700 feet or so when I've flown through there; the decision of the helicopter pilot to climb higher was definitely a factor in that crash, even though I wouldn't say he was "out of line" in doing so.

But below this Skyline Route, it could happen again... not because of poorly-structured airspaces or lack of ATC clearance requirements, traffic alerts or vectoring/assigned altitudes, but because pilots might still fail to see and avoid. That's basically what happened, and it could happen anywhere, even in controlled airspace.
Click to expand...
Certainly it could happen again. However, the new rule is designed to keep aircraft from switching from one level to another in the middle of the corridor. The helicopter would stay low until either Alpine Tower or VZ and the airplane would stay high until either of those points. If the airplane pilot had wanted to join either the "transient" or "local" levels, he would have already made that decision and change to the CTAF frequency. I think that the controllers in the neighborhood of the Hudson corridor are sufficiently alerted (at least for awhile) to the dangers that they will positively assure informed entry into it.

[disclaimer]We must always be alert for the pilot not aware of or not following the rules.[/disclaimer]
 
AuntPeggy said:
Certainly it could happen again. However, the new rule is designed to keep aircraft from switching from one level to another in the middle of the corridor. The helicopter would stay low until either Alpine Tower or VZ and the airplane would stay high until either of those points. If the airplane pilot had wanted to join either the "transient" or "local" levels, he would have already made that decision and change to the CTAF frequency. I think that the controllers in the neighborhood of the Hudson corridor are sufficiently alerted (at least for awhile) to the dangers that they will positively assure informed entry into it.

[disclaimer]We must always be alert for the pilot not aware of or not following the rules.[/disclaimer]
Click to expand...
Let's hope you're right. I hate to suggest the tour helis should be restricted in any way, but they can afford to stay lower, and it would be best if they did, for all concerned. The views of Manhattan are awesome enough from 900 feet; it won't hurt their business.

Personally, I've never had a problem with aircraft climbing or descending in there... most transiting fixed-wing pilots seem to just stay as high as they can, for obvious reasons. :D

But there's the jokers who are not using the CTAF and suddenly turn around in the middle somewhere... things like that are not a good idea in there.
It happened to me once , northbound in a 172, abeam the WTC- I was gaining on a C150 that was also headed north, way off on the eastern edge of the corridor. Couldn't pass him on the right without busting the airspace or the clearance rules, couldn't climb, and I didn't fancy diving under him (plenty of helis around, as usual). Soon it was at my 1 o-clock, a bit higher... I called and called to them, but no answer. Checked to make sure, again, that I had the right freq... called for a radio check, got an answer from somebody... so it wasn't me. I thought of passing on the left, but what if they turned?

Throttled back to avoid passing them, and waited to see what they'd do next.... I was glad I did, because they suddenly racked it over into a left 180 right across the river, as if they just realized where they were or something. :rolleyes: It was hardly a near-midair, but if I hadn't been vigilant... who knows?

Did that pilot check their 7 o'clock before turning? I'll bet a dollar they didn't. Probably had no clue I was there. :frown2:

Requiring comms in the corrdior is hardly a bad idea... but as in the case I mentioned, it takes more than that to be safe in such an airspace- or anywhere, really.
 
Missa said:
Read what I ment not what I wrote. :nono:
Click to expand...

Seeing as neither Ed nor I are mind readers, we are unable to comply with your request.
 
Sheesh..I wonder how many POA'ers were at this meeting. I was there with my CFI and I wish we coulda all somehow planned to meet up before it began :-( BTW is was a beautiful night to fly to and from HPN last Monday!
 
Peggy, thanks for the update. That was helpful. Obviously, I'll read the official details before I actually tackle the corridor, but you provided a great synopsis.

Nick -- you live in the wide open West. You wouldn't believe how congested this airspace is. A few easy-to-understand rules of the road will be a great help to all.
 
flyersfan31 said:
Nick -- you live in the wide open West. You wouldn't believe how congested this airspace is. A few easy-to-understand rules of the road will be a great help to all.
Click to expand...

I learned to fly in Nashua, NH, all around the Boston Bravo, so I get a pretty good idea, but your point is definitely taken.
 
SkyHog said:
I learned to fly in Nashua, NH, all around the Boston Bravo, so I get a pretty good idea, but your point is definitely taken.
Click to expand...

Then you clearly appreciate flying out west!!! The East/West difference is striking, isn't it? Only thing in the west, in my experience, that duplicates the Northeast experience is the LA basin.
 
flyersfan31 said:
Then you clearly appreciate flying out west!!! The East/West difference is striking, isn't it? Only thing in the west, in my experience, that duplicates the Northeast experience is the LA basin.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I fly out of KBED since 1987 (about 15 miles from Boston).
I've flown once out of MYF and felt so constrained by Miramar, the ocean,
the mountains. My own sense is that the Boston area isn't very congested.
 
Bob Noel said:
I don't know. I fly out of KBED since 1987 (about 15 miles from Boston).
I've flown once out of MYF and felt so constrained by Miramar, the ocean,
the mountains. My own sense is that the Boston area isn't very congested.
Click to expand...

Try Philly/NYC then.
 
So, has anyone actually flown the corridor since the new rules? What are the chances of a Bravo clearance on a Sunday early afternoon?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
So, has anyone actually flown the corridor since the new rules? What are the chances of a Bravo clearance on a Sunday early afternoon?
Click to expand...
Check the latest NOTAMS for the corridor. What I posted has been amended and I haven't gone back to change my post.
 
But so far, no one has mentioned the one BIG change that they DID make in the new rules.
I have circled the lady many times, always to the RIGHT. (CLOCKwise) I learned by talking to and following a helicopter pilot who was kind enough to explain to me how it was done.
NOW the rules say to circle to the LEFT! (COUNTERclockwise)
WHY?
Sounds like an invitation to disaster to me. All it takes is one person who's done it the old way but hasn't read the new rules.
Anyone care to comment?

P.S. I posted something about this on the red board a while back and nooobody answered me.
 
I thought in the old days helos circled one way at one altitude and fixed wing circled the other way at a higher altitude, but I don't have the old charts.
 
Imk thinking about doing a Sunday flight up the corridor.
 
TMetzinger said:
I thought in the old days helos circled one way at one altitude and fixed wing circled the other way at a higher altitude, but I don't have the old charts.
Click to expand...
I've had the charts for about 10 years and I can't recall ever seeing a suggested direction around the Lady.

-Skip
 
TMetzinger said:
I thought in the old days helos circled one way at one altitude and fixed wing circled the other way at a higher altitude, but I don't have the old charts.
Click to expand...

Since I had never circled the Lady before, I called one of the Helicopter pilots that I heard on 123.5. I asked him what the procedure was. He told me, and I quote, "Always circle to the right, stay outside the bouys you see in the water around the lady, and stay on the radio and let us know where you are."
So I did exactly that at 600 feet in the Tomahawk, and I've been doing it that way ever since. I never had anyone tell me different until the new rules went into effect.
Every time I've been over there, all traffic that I have seen has circled to the right.
 
Has anyone requested the "skyline route" by name? I requested it from two different controllers today and neither knew what I was talking about. "Hudson northbound at 1,500 in the Bravo" seemed to be understood with little difficulty. I guess the new name hasn't stuck yet?

Best,
Jason
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
Has anyone requested the "skyline route" by name? [...]
Click to expand...

This was also our first idea, but then we decided to fly the "Hudson River Exclusion" on the altitude for transient operations, which goes from 1000 to 1299 ft.. I would recommend this for anybody who wants to fly along the Hudson, as it is absolutely stress free and a great altitude for sightseeing.

You can find a tutorial on the FAA safety website: http://faasafety.gov/files/helpcontent/Courses/NY Course/menu.html

Cheers,

Oliver
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
Has anyone requested the "skyline route" by name? I requested it from two different controllers today and neither knew what I was talking about. "Hudson northbound at 1,500 in the Bravo" seemed to be understood with little difficulty. I guess the new name hasn't stuck yet?

Best,
Jason
Click to expand...

How was it? Any pictures?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top