Reason Writers Around Town: Bob Poole on the New York Helicopter-Plane Crash and the Failures of the FAA

At the New York Post, Reason Foundation Director of Transportation Policy Robert Poole writes:

SATURDAY'S helicopter-plane collision over the Hudson stems in part from the politicization of decisions about air safety and air traffic control, both of them the province of the Federal Aviation Administration.

When a crash occurs, members of Congress from the area are quick to point fingers and call for tougher regulations. But few people realize how much Congress and aviation interest groups can be obstacles to improved air safety.

Read the rest here.

Comments

[polio robot]

If only the pilots were drug tested before the flight then this would have been avoided. Drug tests prevent accidents.

[Alan Vanneman]

"When a crash occurs, members of Congress from the area are quick to point fingers and call for tougher regulations. But few people realize how much Congress and aviation interest groups can be obstacles to improved air safety."

If you actually read Reason Foundation Director of Transportation Policy Robert Poole's article, you'll learn that he places the entire blame on "general aviation trade groups," who lobby Congress to prevent the FAA from implementing "tough" regulations.

The point of the article seems to be that we need tougher regulations, but the damned corporate lobbyists keep that from happening--something I wouldn't have expected from Reason Foundation Director of Transportation Policy Robert Poole.

[William]

The evidence continues to mount that all government--every single scrap of it--is bad, bad, bad. Thank you, Reason, for your relentless work in confirming this eternal truth!

[dbcooper]

The pilot of the helicopter was the captain of my friend's rugby team in high school. Sh*t, I'm practically famous!

[R C Dean]

If you actually read Reason Foundation Director of Transportation Policy Robert Poole's article, you'll learn that he places the entire blame on "general aviation trade groups," who lobby Congress to prevent the FAA from implementing "tough" regulations.

C'mon, Allan. The post blames trade groups and Congress. You blame trade groups, yet, curiously, let Congress off the hook for doing their bidding.

What gives?

[Stephen Massey]

PR.... accidents will unfortunatley happen if drugs are involved or not.

If that was the case here then it is very sad.
Listening to the reports it appears to me the helicopter was in the fixed wing pilots blind spot when he took off,maybe it's time for some A.T.C.

[FrBunny]

Joe Scarborough -- who I usually find bearable -- immediately raised the issue this morning that terrorists could fly a Cessna full of bombs up the Hudson and straight into "any landmark in New York". So we must pass more laws! Even his field reporter was stunned at the stupidity.

"Joe, you're the only person I've heard concerned by that angle of this story," I believe was the approximate quote.

[J sub D]

A helicopter and a fixed wing aircraft ran into each other. Meh. I'm willing to live with the occasional GA crash just as I'm willing to live with the much more common automobile crash.

I don't get the ground clutter thing he's talking about at all.

With conventional radar, I transmit at Freq A and low altitude and surface objects reflect Freq A back at me, masking skin returns (also at Freq A) from aircraft.

With the interrogator/transponder system I listen on a different freq than I transmit on so reflections from ground clutter e.g. birds, automobiles, buildings etc. don't mask the Freq B that that the responding aircraft transmits in response.

Multipath propogation of the signals may have some confusing effects, but my considerable experience playing with the electromagnetic spectrum with both conventional radar and interrogate/responsd systems leads me to believe otherwise.

[rustbelt]

1. A tragedy occurs
2. The facts are not in
3. In that space, some nanny with an agenda jumps up to explain that the problem is lack of regulation due to special interests
4. That nanny is a Reason Foundation foundation director. WTF?

[Matthew]

Alan,

If you read the article a little more carefully you will see that although the author notes the role the GA has played in obstructing advances in air safety, the real problem is the lack of separation and consequent conflict of interest between the two roles the FAA has, of being both responsible for ATC and also air safety regulations. He advocates separation as a solution.

[hammeredHead]

The Libertarian position supports more regulation? Somebody forgot to notify me of the change.

[Matthew]

FrBunny,

could fly a Cessna full of bombs up the Hudson and straight into "any landmark in New York".

So? Just ban airplanes and bombs, problem solved.

[Matthew]

hammeredHead,

The L. position in this case supports having different agencies oversee the two roles the FAA currently oversees. Not more regulation.

[FrBunny]

Don't be silly, Matthew. We need only ban bombs on airplanes. Or murder. Either option will work 100% of the time.

[Kevin]

Don't be silly, Matthew. We need only ban bombs on airplanes. Or murder. Either option will work 100% of the time.

No, no, no. You BOTH have it wrong. Just make blowing stuff up a Hate Crime. That will stop it.

[James C. Bennett]

"Even in large-scale mass production,
the ADS-B box that includes the traffic
display will likely cost several tens of
thousands of dollars."

This is the part of the article that I don't get. From the description given, this device sounds like a GPS that periodically broadcasts the unit's ID and coordinates, listens for similar broadcasts from other units, and displays the positions of all units who's broadcast it receives. That doesn't sound like the kind of thing that ought to be so expensive. I wonder why that is the case, and, in the absence of evidence, am inclined to assume that it somehow stems from government involvment in the development of the technology.

[hammeredHead]

That doesn't sound like the kind of thing that ought to be so expensive.

It is probably due to accrual for potential liability expenses. This is the same reason that small planes are far more expensive than a car.

The L. position in this case supports having different agencies oversee the two roles the FAA currently oversees. Not more regulation.

Well he did seem to be saying that the lobbyists were preventing increased regulatory mandates.

[Tony]

The problem in this case is that small private crafts such as the ones that collided are simply not regulated enough. The corridor they take up and down the river is thick with tourists as well as the air traffic associated with some of the busiest airports in the world. Pilots have to rely basically on a haphazard system of reporting where they are and when, thus relying more on individual memory than a centralized organizer of air traffic. Someone point to me how more regulation of air traffic is a bad thing, other than it's the government and everything the government does is bad.

[J sub D]

Someone point to me how more regulation of air traffic is a bad thing,

You can't be so obtuse that you didn't know this was coming.*

It costs too much money. It will only deliver minimal improvements in air traffic safety. It restricts freedom.

* Oh, it's you Tony. You can be that obtuse.

[Dr. K.]

The corridor they take up and down the river is thick with tourists as well as the air traffic associated with some of the busiest airports in the world.

Actually, the VFR corridor exists specifically to segregate the small private craft from the commercial traffic and keep them out of controlled airspaces.

[Dr. K.]

The corridor they take up and down the river is thick with tourists as well as the air traffic associated with some of the busiest airports in the world.

Actually, the VFR corridor exists specifically to segregate the small private craft from the commercial traffic and keep them out of controlled airspaces.

[Ron Chambless]

As I was reading this article, I could not help but to remember another good intentioned idea from the past.

At one time it was argued, in the same of safety of course, that a woman traveling with a very young infant or toddler, should have to buy a second ticket in order that the child has its own seat, instead of being able to sit on the mothers lap.

At first glance that sounded good, and maybe it would actually be safer in the airplane. However, in the big picture, it would have resulted in MORE deaths, since many mothers would not be able to afford that second ticket and would then resort to driving, which has a much greater fatality rate than airline travel.

I see a similar parallel in the opinion advocated in this article. Why if only it was mandated that every aircraft, especially general aviation aircraft, must have this equipment, costing several tens of thousands of dollars according to the author, aviation would be so much safer. And that additionally, if the Federal Aviation Administration was doing its job correctly, this would be required of all planes now.

Unfortunately, as with the first example, there are flaws in this reasoning as well, not to mention ironic that a Libertarian to be advocating a massive unfunded government mandate along with creation of an additional government agency, all to address one of the most statistically unlikely causes of an aircraft accident.

There are errors in the article itself, whether controlled airspace restricts freedom to fly (since most airspace is already considered controlled airspace), or that all transponders broadcast the aircraft ID (which is not true either). And that aircraft usually need flight plans to operate in busy airspace around cities, which is not necessarily true either unless it is an airline operation or they plane will depart on an Instrument Flight Plan (which has constant ATC monitoring for collision avoidance and staying precisely enroute).

He impugns the General Aviation industries, along with the FAA and Congress, as sacrificing aviation safety for money. Modernization has not been sacrificed because of General Aviation lobbying. Congress itself has criticized the FAA for cost overuns, a lack of documentation and planning when it comes to modernizing the Air Traffic Control systems, which all( General Aviation groups included), acknowledge needs to be updated. This article insinuates that General Aviation groups want it to stay the same, which is far from the truth.

And splitting off ATC into another agency, is not going to be some panacea for aviation safety. While other countries have split ATC off, it certainly has not been a perfect process, since you will have no problem finding European pilots who prefer the American ATC system which is more user friendly and less expensive. Not to mention the system he advocates of a user fee, encourages pilots to try to operate outside of air traffic control instead of participating in it, which then lowers aviation safety, instead of increasing it.

And to the one of the main assertions, namely would mandatory installation of an expensive ADS-B make meaningful increases in aviation safety? Probably not. Only a very small percentage of accidents are the result of two aircraft colliding in the air. And of course any crash that can be prevented should. However, if as the author desires, which every airplane, even planes flown out on weekends for that $100 hamburger or a student lesson, should require a device that costs often much more than the airplane is even worth, obviously resulting in eliminating that already ailing segment of aviation that is more recreational in nature. I suppose that is one way of decreasing aviation accidents, by decreasing aviation activity.

And many General Aviation and recreational pilots avoid such crowded and busy airspace like NYC, because it is more expensive to use those larger airports, which are often not general aviation friendly either. And operating from those airports and very crowded airspace is not any sane persons idea of recreation.

If this proposal for a device costing tens of thousands of dollars was mandated for all aircraft,you would then see the vast majority of recreational and leisure aviation disappear, along with flight training schools, majority of small business aviation and airports, much of agricultural aviation, and general aviation manufacturing too, all to address about a very unlikely cause of an aircraft accident. If you want to immediately address a major issue that does not require costly mandated devices in airplanes, then investigate how airlines abuse pilot rest requirements, outsourced maintainence to third world countries, and have hired vastly inexperienced pilots. We have seen the results of these, with airline pilots falling asleep, and inexperienced crew in the Colgan Airlines DHC-8 crash recently.

Look at how many tens of thousands of fatality car accidents happen yearly? Would the author be in favor of some kind of nationally mandatory automobile device that would add tens of thousands of dollars to the price of a car, then making it less affordable and devastating the auto industries, if it would prevent more auto accidents? Probably not is my guess, and likely would see an article written decrying an intrusive government mandated program which results in less people able to afford and drive cars, even though hundreds or thousands of lives maybe saved.

And lets revisit the initial example I used. Since much of the general aviation that he blames for a perceived problem in aviation safety, would not even exist anymore if there was a requirement to install these devices costing several tens of thousands of dollars, how would many of them then travel?

By engaging in a statistically far more dangerous and unsafe activity known as driving. And that could be a definite result of a fee driven separate ATC system, combined with a very expensive mandated ADS-B for all aircraft.

Ron Chambless

[Tbone]

Annual Gen Aviation fatalities steady at 600 or so for last decade. Undoubtedly made up primarily of pilots, friends, and family who own or can rent a plane/corporate jet.

Very low fatality rate and fatalities comprised mostly of people who chose the luxury / convenience. Does anybody even consider these facts before the kneejerk towards more regulation?

[a different Alan]

FrBunny wrote:
"could fly a Cessna full of bombs up the Hudson and straight into "any landmark in New York"."

Matthew wrote:
"So? Just ban airplanes and bombs, problem solved."

I believe we could get a large constituency for banning New York, or, alternately, landmarks. Either or both should suffice.

[JD]

I fail to see how Yet Another Gadget would have solved this problem. As far as I can tell, the pilot of the plane flew straight into a helicopter in front of him in clear weather. Do they make a device that cures stupidity now? I suspect a guy capable of failing to look in front of him while flying a plane is also quite capable of failing to check his instruments too.

[HeadTater]

You know why the FAA fails?

Cuz the government runs it.

What is the exact opposite of the Midas Touch? Whatever it is, the government has it. Instead of gold, everything they touch turns into shit (or an equally anti-gold material).

[johnl]

So Bob Poole really wants to double the price of an entry level plane?

[Turnkey]

As fun as it would be to talk about having no FAA, they have overall greatly increased GA safety. The initial ADS-B case study in Alaska halved the accident rate.

To be fair about the date, most companies will take 6-8 years to certify the new ADS-B items anyway.

Buy hey, their taking our freedom if we can't drive drunks and impinge on lives of the public at large....... >.>

[strat]

As a libertarian with a pilot certificate (They're not "licenses" because people flew before there was an FAA. Tradition states that the government is recognizing skills you already have. It may not mean much in practice, but the sentiment is laudable.), I have to part company with Mr. Poole here.

If any other commentator in Reason argued that we should all install tracking devices in our cars to help the Federal Highway Administration or NHTSA "keep us safe", they'd be laughed off of the page. It's incongruous that GA aircraft, with a significantly lower overall accident rate, should automatically have to have such things.

Here's part of why I don't feel guilty paying dues to AOPA, despite their kneejerk resistance to user fees in aviation. General aviation fuel taxes are yet another example of a case where the Government "promises" that the tax receipts will ONLY be used for particular purposes - the maintenance of the air traffic system. This includes airport improvements and the like.

If I thought for a second that the USG would repeal all of the fuel taxes while simultaneously implementing user fees that actually mapped to impact on the system - not just GA traffic's use of ATC, which Mr. Poole often fumes about, but things like construction of runways sturdy enough to support heavy jets for air carriers, I'd jump at the opportunity. We all know how likely such a rational financial rearrangement that would be.

Failing that, GA is looking at the ADDITION of "user fees" on top of already usurious fuel taxes. Mr. Poole knows enough about how government works that he shouldn't be shocked at the reaction to user fee proposals.

Add to this the public's understandable assumptions that airplanes are magically locked to an infallible and mandatory beam of government-operated guidance in the sky, and you begin to see why anyone with any experience in GA often has the look of someone under siege.

We're already dealing with developers who build houses next to 50 year old airports only to be "Shocked!, Shocked!!" that there are aircraft flying near by...then trying to shut them down, along with class warriors who paint anyone not happy to fly only in an unreserved seat on some budget carrier as an unfeeling "rich person."

Anyone with a pleasure boat (no matter what size) knows that people with boats are almost by definition not wealthy - maintenance fixes that. Airplanes are even more that way.

Someone was asking why it should be so expensive to certify and install new ADS-B equipment (handwaving for the moment over the privacy issues) - I once owned a Piper Cherokee built in 1969. The door handles were identical to those used in a 1960-era automobile. They weren't similar - they were the SAME door handles. When my door handle broke, I could go to a junkyard and find one, but that would be a felony... I had to buy it from an aviation parts supplier that could certify it had been approved (by the FAA) for aviation use, or alternatively, I could pay my airframe & powerplant mechanic to wave his wand over whatever door handle he could use and "manufacture" a suitable one. Usually that would look something like buying it from a junkyard and smiling.

[Steve]

What we need to do is ban general aviation. This is where most accidents occur. All planes at all altitudes should file flight plans and be under ATC control, even a plane crop dusting a field should have a flight plan. There was a time when there wasn't much air traffic, but these days general aviation is an anachronism when you can get anywhere on a commercial flight.

[Tim]

It is probably due to accrual for potential liability expenses. This is the same reason that small planes are far more expensive than a car.

True, even though a small Cessna like the 150 or 170 series is much simpler mechanically than a modern car.

[Tim]

What Ron Chambless said. I have some experience as a pilot, I took 12 hours or so of lessons, and I agree.

[Tim]

"could fly a Cessna full of bombs up the Hudson and straight into "any landmark in New York".

Or drive a car full of bombs, we should ban cars.

[Tim]

We're already dealing with developers who build houses next to 50 year old airports only to be "Shocked!, Shocked!!" that there are aircraft flying near by...then trying to shut them down

That has always irked me too. The same thing happens when developers build near an auto racing track.

[jc]

I currently am a pilot in Canada. Although we have a separation between the Transport Canada and Nav Canada this event would have the same outcome here in Canada. I trained in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. There have been a couple of mid-air crashes out in the practice areas in that region. One practice area was shut down after one crash which pushed more people out to an area called Glen Valley to do there training. That area is un-controlled. It will likely have a mid-air collision in the future. In Canada we also have uncontrolled IFR airspace. Something that is pretty much non-existent as far as I know in the USA. That is pilots fly uncontrolled in IMC conditions with no guaranteed separation.

Does Robert Poole expect that Aviation should be free of risk?

Should we get every airplane to install TCAS to help them avoid collisions?

Should we certify every GA plane for CAT III approaches and an auto pilot so when the weather comes down they can have a couple of more tools to keep them from crashing

[DADIODADDY]

How about we make all pilots...look where the fuck they're going. The fixed wing aircraft run right up the heliocpoters' butt. How does all this proposed crap stop that from happening?

[Ride Fast]

The equipment is so expensive because it has to be "approved for use in aircraft". Plus liability which accounts for about a quarter of the cost of anything aviation related.

If the Hudson area needs to be controlled airspace that's just tough, control it. Doesn't justify all GA aircraft make tens of thousands of dollars of equipment upgrades.

[Evan]

The equipment is so expensive because it has to be "approved for use in aircraft".

To be sure it is safe.

Doesn't justify all GA aircraft make tens of thousands of dollars of equipment upgrades.

I fail to see how that is an issue, if you can't afford it don't fly, but don't endanger everyone else.

[Kevn]

"I fail to see how that is an issue, if you can't afford it don't fly, but don't endanger everyone else."

Ok Evan, there is also quite a bit of new anti-collision technology being introduced into high-end cars. Using your logic, why not force everyone to buy and install the latest anti-collision technology in their cars. If they can't afford it, they shouldn't drive because they are endangering everyone else.

[strat]

Steve purports: "There was a time when there wasn't much air traffic, but these days general aviation is an anachronism when you can get anywhere on a commercial flight."

That may be true for personal travel, but many people who have received organ transplants may differ with you. Not only are many, if not most, transplant organs delivered via general aviation flights (both via fixed wing aircraft and rotorcraft), but quite a few pilots volunteer their time to help medical patients with all manner of maladies in rural areas get to facilities for treatment.

[Bill Redpath]

That's it, Bob. This is the last straw. I've warned you before, so it should come as no surprise.

I'm pulling you membership.

If you want more bureaucracy and more regulation, you can go join the Republicrats for all I care.

Bill

[G Goodknight]

The biggest obstacle for ADS-B adoption is the glacial pace of service area activation by the FAA. There is at least one small company selling ADS-B receivers for less than $2000, NavWorx.com, but if you do not fly in an area that has coverage it does you no good. For $2K, you don't broadcast your GPS position, the FAA uses its radar information to paint your position on the ADS-B output stream broadcast by satellite.

Poole, who sold me my first Reason subscription in the mid 80's when I walked over to the Santa Barbara office at lunchtime one day, strangely seems to just despise general aviation.

While I do think us piston pilots are being used by the AOPA to shield small corporate jetliners from paying reasonable fees, I now see Bob Poole denigrating the little guys with the same gusto; Reason should be ashamed of this. The Lance pilot was following the rules, the helicopter apparently just happened to be in the plane's blind spot during most, if not all, of it's short flight. The helicopter also climbed right up where the fixed wing traffic is expected to be, by local convention, rather than remaining at 800' or below.

Much has been made of an apparent delay of the Lance pilot's contact of the next ATC facility, but it can often take more than a minute to jump into the middle of the communication stream. There is a protocol of first listening and then jumping in when the last exchange is finished,and besides, the #1 job of the pilot is to fly the airplane, not to talk to ATC.

The airplane was flying from one place to another and that's what transportation is all about. The helicopter was selling 12 minute segments of $800/hr/person joyrides to see NYC and that's what amusement parks are all about. Isn't it cheaper and safer to just take the elevator to the top of the Empire State Building?

The easiest and cheapest way to guard against this in the future is to restrict helicopter flights to 800 and below, and fixed wing craft to between 900 and 1100. This is already what many pilots apparently follow along the Hudson route but that commandment is not on the FAA maps.

[G Goodknight]

A "JD" writes, "As far as I can tell, the pilot of the plane flew straight into a helicopter in front of him in clear weather. Do they make a device that cures stupidity now? I suspect a guy capable of failing to look in front of him while flying a plane is also quite capable of failing to check his instruments too."

The helicopter was not cruising at 1100', it had just climbed there to get a nice view to the passengers who just paid $160 each for a 12 minute joyride. From the published flight paths, it appears the Lance had been at that altitude, and the helicopter had climbed up and just arrived at that altitude. It's very possible the helicopter had only just popped up into the Lance's pilot's field of view just seconds (or even less) before the accident.

The slower helicopter climbed right up from ground level to 1100' despite being slower than the aircraft expected at 1100' and having a blind spot for any of that faster traffic coming up above and behind them. A recipe for disaster.

[G Goodknight]

DADDIODADDY wrote, without much in the way of decency, "How about we make all pilots...look where the fXXX they're going. The fixed wing aircraft run right up the heliocpoters'[sic] butt. How does all this proposed crap stop that from happening?"

The helicopter, rather than just assuming there wasn't any traffic they needed to be aware of, could have seen on a display screen that his planned route of flight was dangerous. That's assuming, of course, that the helicopter pilot's dual role of pilot *and* tour guide allowed him the time to look for conflicts.

And the Lance pilot would have had a chance to see that there was an aircraft climbing up in front and below him.

However, just keeping helicopters at a lower altitude could keep a similar midair happening over the Hudson for another 40 years or longer.

[Peter Jensen]

In this case the cause had nothing to do with pilots, but with the traffic controller who was on the phone and wasn't paying attention to the traffic.

[G Goodknight]

Even when giving Radar Services to an aircraft, which they apparently were not, ATC is not responsible for VFR traffic separation.

This had everything to do with the pilots, especially the helicopter pilot who climbed the entire height of the corridor despite his complete blind spot for traffic above and behind him. The helicopter pilot also had to split his time between being the pilot and being the tour guide for the 12 minute, $160 dollar per person ride.

[GA Pilot]

Not everyone here is a pilot, so let me make a very accurate analogy most will grasp: Commercial trucking and interstate busing firms, frustrated with sharing the road with the more numerous but merely privately owned automobiles, get the NTSB to "reform" the highway system so that you may only use it if you mount a $30k black box in you car.

Astonishing that a defense of this approach to... anything appears in this magazine.

[canada private jet service]

your site is very nice and useful for me, I Bookmarked your blog

[canada private jet service]

your site is very nice and useful for me, I Bookmarked your blog